PDA

View Full Version : David Robinson is a top 8 player all-time. Proof



Pages : [1] 2

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 12:07 AM
David Robinson is underrated for the following reasons.

Being outplayed by Hakeem in one series.
Never winning a ring on his own.
Often performed bad in the playoffs (Like Barry Bonds)

But at the end of the day you have to be judged by the overall numbers you put up each year, not one game hear and one game there. At the end of the season, Robinson put up numbers worthy of the top five players to ever play b-ball.

Here is some proof.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_season.html
(notice the difference between him and Tim Duncan)

Ebbs
09-12-2013, 01:18 AM
What I noticed was Dirk having the highest 2 seasons for a PF.

abe_froman
09-12-2013, 01:25 AM
so do you think conniw hawkins is to? ws/48 isnt an end all,be all stat ,nor can you go by stats alone to judge an all time ranking

shep33
09-12-2013, 01:45 AM
Class act... Hall of Famer... Great two-way center... Athletic freak of nature

But no way in **** is he a top 8 player of all-time. Heck he's probably the 8th best center of all-time.

Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Moses, Russel and Mikan are probably all better than him at that spot.

carlthack
09-12-2013, 01:50 AM
David Robinson is underrated
Here is some proof.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_season.html
(notice the difference between him and Tim Duncan)

I know this is supposed to be about D-Rob but on that list I just keep seeing Kareem, Kareem, Kareem. Why isnt Kareem given more respect as the greatest player of all-time?

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 01:53 AM
OK first David would destroy Mikan in a fantasy prive vs prime matchup. And as far as the other guys you named the stats disagree with you, and for guys like Mikan, Russel, moses, and Hakeem, the stats aren't even close.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 01:56 AM
OK first David would destroy Mikan in a fantasy prive vs prime matchup. And as far as the other guys you named the stats disagree with you, and for guys like Mikan, Russel, moses, and Hakeem, the stats aren't even close.

Hey, "IKnowHoops". you don't know hoops.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 01:57 AM
I know this is supposed to be about D-Rob but on that list I just keep seeing Kareem, Kareem, Kareem. Why isnt Kareem given more respect as the greatest player of all-time?

I think Kareem does get the second most credit above Wilt for possibly being the best ever. Its just hard to beat Jordan. His skills and storybook career combined just make it hard. But Kareem does get mad love, but I understand your point, why is he not above Jordan. He may have been, the Jordan legend is so good its blinding, its ingrained that its impossible to be better than him.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 01:58 AM
I know this is supposed to be about D-Rob but on that list I just keep seeing Kareem, Kareem, Kareem. Why isnt Kareem given more respect as the greatest player of all-time?

Because Kareem is amongst the greatest of all time. After that, it's all opinion.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 01:59 AM
Hey, "IKnowHoops". you don't know hoops.

Since you do, please explain to me the WinShares discrepancy David holds, many years over, over so many players that are considered better than he.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 02:03 AM
so do you think conniw hawkins is to? ws/48 isnt an end all,be all stat ,nor can you go by stats alone to judge an all time ranking

I feel you, but when certain stats are so overwhelming, and when the other people at the top fall in line to our general thought process as to who were the best ever. Then you factor in how David was considered better than Dream while they were both playing until that one playoff series. Im going to youtube Connie right now and tell you what I think. I have never seen Connie play.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 02:14 AM
Since you do, please explain to me the WinShares discrepancy David holds, many years over, over so many players that are considered better than he.

I don't know anything about winshares. What I know about the NBA is from watching NBA basketball being played.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 02:17 AM
I feel you, but when certain stats are so overwhelming, and when the other people at the top fall in line to our general thought process as to who were the best ever. Then you factor in how David was considered better than Dream while they were both playing until that one playoff series. Im going to youtube Connie right now and tell you what I think. I have never seen Connie play.

Very few got to see Connie Hawkins play when he still cared about basketball.

ddt
09-12-2013, 03:02 AM
David Robinson was good. I'm not sure about top 8 of ALL TIME. More like... Top 50 of all time?

arlubas
09-12-2013, 06:46 AM
Thanks for the laughs bud.

PurpleLynch
09-12-2013, 06:54 AM
Robinson is a legend,but when you judge a player you have to look at playoffs performances too. He can't be in the top 8 for that. After all the Nba is about winning the Finals,everything you do in the regular season is for winning the playoffs. And history says that he performed bad often in the playoffs. So definitely not a top 8 of all time.

Hawkeye15
09-12-2013, 08:54 AM
The Admiral is very underrated, but he isn't top 8 all time. top 15-18? sure.

Hawkeye15
09-12-2013, 08:55 AM
Robinson is a legend,but when you judge a player you have to look at playoffs performances too. He can't be in the top 8 for that. After all the Nba is about winning the Finals,everything you do in the regular season is for winning the playoffs. And history says that he performed bad often in the playoffs. So definitely not a top 8 of all time.

regular season matters. That is when the 90% of most players career takes place.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 09:32 AM
Class act... Hall of Famer... Great two-way center... Athletic freak of nature

But no way in **** is he a top 8 player of all-time. Heck he's probably the 8th best center of all-time.

Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Moses, Russel and Mikan are probably all better than him at that spot.

He overrates DR some, but DR is a better player than Moses (although Moses has a case), much longer career against vastly better competition than Mikan had, and he's better than Russell as well (do give credit for Russell landing w/ the best Coachm GM, and team in a small league with no real consistent competition for the rings. Russell gets way too much credit for all of that. There are 3 teams he could have ended up on and arguably won zero titles.

Mile High Champ
09-12-2013, 09:45 AM
I appreciated "The Admiral" as much as the next guy but he is in no way a top 8 player all time. He might even be hard pressed to be top 5 at his position. Lets try and look at this logically here. When creating a top 10 list, it of course begins with Jordan. You also have guys automatically like Magic, Bird, Kareem and Wilt. If you want to go further we can't forget Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and some may say Bill Russell. Though I believe Russell is very overrated.

kdspurman
09-12-2013, 10:01 AM
The Admiral is very underrated, but he isn't top 8 all time. top 15-18? sure.

My thoughts exactly

b@llhog24
09-12-2013, 10:22 AM
What I noticed was Dirk having the highest 2 seasons for a PF.

Cause Dirk is a bawse.


Class act... Hall of Famer... Great two-way center... Athletic freak of nature

But no way in **** is he a top 8 player of all-time. Heck he's probably the 8th best center of all-time.

Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Moses, Russel and Mikan are probably all better than him at that spot.

He's better than Mikan, Russell and Moses (who has the best argument going for him.)


The Admiral is very underrated, but he isn't top 8 all time. top 15-18? sure.

You've gotta be kidding me.

3RDASYSTEM
09-12-2013, 10:30 AM
I think Kareem does get the second most credit above Wilt for possibly being the best ever. Its just hard to beat Jordan. His skills and storybook career combined just make it hard. But Kareem does get mad love, but I understand your point, why is he not above Jordan. He may have been, the Jordan legend is so good its blinding, its ingrained that its impossible to be better than him.

When talking about whos the best of best storybook endings doesn't have **** to do with it or JORDAN would be to **** then playing for WIZ at the end, now counting had he stayed away after 98' title then I guess that's more storybook fairy tale type, but impact/game on hardwood I go with ALCINDOR and couple more players but JORDAN is up there

JORDAN couldn't get past ZEKE and the bad boys and won only 6 rings in 15yrs, and I say only 6 because everybody on here act like he only played 6 yrs and won all those years and 6 finals mvp's, what happen the other 9 years? go ask BIRD/ZEKE about that

its funny how old schoolers like DR J and WILT and WALTON and BIRD and others say ALCINDOR or OSCAR or WILT is best all time

they seem to not get blinded by media bias Gatorade/mcdonalds commercial hype, so yeah I agree on that part is blinding but any media propaganda is like that all throughout history, he was the cash cow for a lot of businesses outside of nba so they knew how to market that, but he had game also which made it a lot easier to do than just to have a so so player

ROBINSON is easily one of the best centers to do it, getting handled by a all time legend is nothing to be ashamed of, if that's the case JORDAN got handled by IVERSON every time they matched up but that doesn't make him better nor does it make JORDAN better because he won rings, his game was always there, even when he got swept out by BIRD he still dropped like 44ppg, same thing he avg 7yrs later against PHX in finals minus 2pts, same points he dropped in the final game as a BULL in 98' finals against JAZZ to seal win, or maybe he dropped 45pts that game 6, I cant recall exactly but it was his game

from day 1 until the wheels fell off

players don't change, they just age and father time catches up
DROB had the game but I have to take RODMAN advice and agree that the mental toughness wasn't there and that can separate the SHAQ/DREAM/ALCINDOR from those types, just like a JORDAN/IVERSON type has both the mental and physical capacity that most lack, just how I see it

but he is easily top 10 C's to do it all time, no shame in not being top 5 center or top 8 player ever and no proof is ever in stats, especially when team talent and coaching and gm have a lot to do with that player succeeding title wise, game is game so that will be showcased regardless

jaydubb
09-12-2013, 10:32 AM
David Robinson is underrated for the following reasons.

Being outplayed by Hakeem in one series.
Never winning a ring on his own.
Often performed bad in the playoffs (Like Barry Bonds)

But at the end of the day you have to be judged by the overall numbers you put up each year, not one game hear and one game there. At the end of the season, Robinson put up numbers worthy of the top five players to ever play b-ball.

Here is some proof.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_season.html
(notice the difference between him and Tim Duncan)

A top 8 player would NOT often perform bad in the playoffs

b@llhog24
09-12-2013, 10:32 AM
I appreciated "The Admiral" as much as the next guy but he is in no way a top 8 player all time. He might even be hard pressed to be top 5 at his position. Lets try and look at this logically here. When creating a top 10 list, it of course begins with Jordan. You also have guys automatically like Magic, Bird, Kareem and Wilt. If you want to go further we can't forget Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and some may say Bill Russell. Though I believe Russell is very overrated.

Most of the top ten are centers anyway.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 11:23 AM
Underrated? Yes by a lot

Top 8? Probably not.

I hated the Spurs but before Drobs back injury and before Tim Duncan I always felt like Drob was better than Hakeem outside of that 1 playoff series. Better than Moses. Better than Russell.

Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt are the only ones I would say for sure were above Drob (pre back injury). As a rookie he was the fastest center I had ever seen. He put up around 24ppg-12rpg-4bpg as a rookie. Who does that?

DreamShaker
09-12-2013, 11:45 AM
Robinson and Hakeem were pretty equal until you look at the playoffs, then it is not close. And Robinson had equal, if not better, talent around him. Robinson was bigger and more athletic, but Dream had more of a killer instinct and rose to the occasion when pressure arose. You would much rather go to battle with Hakeem, and I'm not sure you could debate that. I hea rd a story that during Dream Team practices, guys like MJ, Magic, and Barkley tried to get Clyde, Robinson, and Malone on the opposite team, because they were all mentally weak and usually lost. An interesting insight into guys who always came up short in big moments.

DreamShaker
09-12-2013, 11:52 AM
Underrated? Yes by a lot

Top 8? Probably not.

I hated the Spurs but before Drobs back injury and before Tim Duncan I always felt like Drob was better than Hakeem outside of that 1 playoff series. Better than Moses. Better than Russell.

Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt are the only ones I would say for sure were above Drob (pre back injury). As a rookie he was the fastest center I had ever seen. He put up around 24ppg-12rpg-4bpg as a rookie. Who does that?

People who grew up in that era (like me) were spoiled for such great centers. You had Hakeem and Robinson trading non-mj MVP's at the top, and then Ewing and young Shaq killing it as well. You also had Mutombo and Mourning and underrated guys like Ric Smits. It also seemed like everyone had a post game. Backups like Hot Rod Williams and James Edwards would have some of the nicest post games in the NBA today. Crazy depth.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 12:06 PM
People who grew up in that era (like me) were spoiled for such great centers. You had Hakeem and Robinson trading non-mj MVP's at the top, and then Ewing and young Shaq killing it as well. You also had Mutombo and Mourning and underrated guys like Ric Smits. It also seemed like everyone had a post game. Backups like Hot Rod Williams and James Edwards would have some of the nicest post games in the NBA today. Crazy depth.

I agree. I went nuts on Mothers day when I heard my Knicks had won the Patrick Ewing lottery. I was thinking championship here we come. Then in Patricks first game his first points were a monster rebound/slam all in one motion over Moses Malone on national TV. That was so awesome.

There were so many great centers from the 1970's-1990's that I took them for granted. Now the league has in many ways become a centerless league at times.

D-Leethal
09-12-2013, 01:02 PM
There is no such thing as statistically-formed proof in basketball. Stats are supporting evidence they are not proof of anything.

D-Leethal
09-12-2013, 01:04 PM
People who grew up in that era (like me) were spoiled for such great centers. You had Hakeem and Robinson trading non-mj MVP's at the top, and then Ewing and young Shaq killing it as well. You also had Mutombo and Mourning and underrated guys like Ric Smits. It also seemed like everyone had a post game. Backups like Hot Rod Williams and James Edwards would have some of the nicest post games in the NBA today. Crazy depth.

I agree. I went nuts on Mothers day when I heard my Knicks had won the Patrick Ewing lottery. I was thinking championship here we come. Then in Patricks first game his first points were a monster rebound/slam all in one motion over Moses Malone on national TV. That was so awesome.

There were so many great centers from the 1970's-1990's that I took them for granted. Now the league has in many ways become centerless league at times.

It seems to be making a comeback as far as C depth but the elite Cs dont sniff the elite Cs of yesteryear. I think were getting an abundance of all star level Cs but lacking in HOF level Cs

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 01:42 PM
There is no such thing as statistically-formed proof in basketball. Stats are supporting evidence they are not proof of anything.

I like that statement.

JasonJohnHorn
09-12-2013, 01:49 PM
I love the Admiral. I think the problem is that, like Duncan, he was a low-key guy. He played in the Jordan era and he wasn't as popular as Barkley or Jordan.... but he was as good as Hakeem in his best seasons. But playing in an era that saw Kareem, Ewing, Hakeem, Shaq and Mourning, we were spoiled back then for about 15 yeas in that we had all but 2 of the greatest C's of all times playing at once (Russell and Wilt being the two excluded). So Robinson go lost in the shuffle a little.

If he played today, people would be putting him in the conversation with LBJ.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 02:03 PM
A top 8 player would NOT often perform bad in the playoffs

Barry Bonds?

smith&wesson
09-12-2013, 02:28 PM
He in my list of top 8 C's

shaq
kareem
russel
wilt
hakeem
Robinson
ewing
m.malone

abe_froman
09-12-2013, 02:47 PM
Barry Bonds?
2 things
1.two players in vastly different sports,thus demands two vastly different ways in which to judge
and..
2.barry bonds career postseason ops-.936(with a near 2.000 in the ws),hardly bad

D-Leethal
09-12-2013, 02:48 PM
I like that statement.

I know I'm beating a dead horse but will continue to do so as long as people keep posting things like the OP. There is never gonna be proof that player A is better than player B based solely on statistical evidence. Thats holds true for players who play in the same era and gets multiplied when trying to compare eras.

The sad part is this dude just throws ONE stat out there and calls it proof. What a joke.

Disservice to a game that is far too fluid, dynamic, and team oriented, with far too many unweighted variables to ever come up with a formula thats can be labeled "proof".

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 02:53 PM
2 things
1.two players in vastly different sports,thus demands two vastly different ways in which to judge
and..
2.barry bonds career postseason ops-.936(with a near 2.000 in the ws),hardly bad

David Robinson's career postseason per is 23 and ws/48 .199(better than dream), very good actually

ManRam
09-12-2013, 02:55 PM
Not top-10...but he is one of the more criminally underrated players ever, for sure. The gap between him and the guys who are considered the legends of the game really isn't nearly as big as it seemingly is.

And come on, whipping out one stat and calling it proof is just a joke. You could make a far more convincing argument if you threw a lot more at us. There are a lot of other things that suggest he's much great than we feel, and simply citing WS/48 isn't going to change anyone's mind, nor should it.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 03:02 PM
A top 8 player would NOT often perform bad in the playoffs

Really? My memory says most have them have at least at times done just that.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 03:07 PM
Underrated? Yes by a lot

Top 8? Probably not.

I hated the Spurs but before Drobs back injury and before Tim Duncan I always felt like Drob was better than Hakeem outside of that 1 playoff series. Better than Moses. Better than Russell.

You started tarted well, but Hakeem eats DRob and not just in that one series. DRob had association with a long term program that just might be 2nd best behind the Celts for constant excellence for over 10 years. DRob failed to win with better teams that Hakeem had. DRob wasn't as a good a defender (his DRtg comes from a better scheme and better players around and better coach, not superior talent). DRob wasn't any good at low post offense, and Hakeem was a top 3 all time.

DRob is in the 5-7 area as a Center depending on what you label TD as - that's great, but it doesn't buy you top 8 or top 10 all time. He comes out in the mid teens to very low twenties at worst. A HOF all the way, but not creme de la creme.


Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt are the only ones I would say for sure were above Drob (pre back injury). As a rookie he was the fastest center I had ever seen.

Sorry, got to have Hakeem above him. TD anyone? Malone? Probably not - although he was Kryptonite to Jabbar. Gilmore anone?


He put up around 24ppg-12rpg-4bpg as a rookie. Who does that?

How old was he?

Hawkeye15
09-12-2013, 03:16 PM
Cause Dirk is a bawse.



He's better than Mikan, Russell and Moses (who has the best argument going for him.)



You've gotta be kidding me.

Generally he is accepted in that range. I have him a bit higher personally, but I am not willing to fight over it. In my personal list, he lands around 11-13 or so. But I think him not winning a chip until he was second banana hurts him in the consensus all time rankings.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 03:19 PM
I know I'm beating a dead horse but will continue to do so as long as people keep posting things like the OP. There is never gonna be proof that player A is better than player B based solely on statistical evidence. Thats holds true for players who play in the same era and gets multiplied when trying to compare eras.

The sad part is this dude just throws ONE stat out there and calls it proof. What a joke.

Disservice to a game that is far too fluid, dynamic, and team oriented, with far too many unweighted variables to ever come up with a formula thats can be labeled "proof".

You make a really good point. That is why I hardly ever rank a guy I did not see play. I just do not think it is fair. When young guys pout down Jordan and Bird I laugh because you cant know their greatness through stats. In Drobs case I saw him play around 30-50 games a year from his very first preseason game so I'm very aware of how he played as well as Hakeem.

It seemed to me like Drob and the Spurs often got the upper hand on the Rockets. The supporting cast on both teams had some good not great players. Terry Cummings was good but declining after a while. Sean Elliot was good but when he went to the Pistons we saw how much his game dropped. I hated the Spurs but I try to give credit where credit is due at least after guys are retired.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 03:28 PM
You started tarted well, but Hakeem eats DRob and not just in that one series. DRob had association with a long term program that just might be 2nd best behind the Celts for constant excellence for over 10 years. DRob failed to win with better teams that Hakeem had. DRob wasn't as a good a defender (his DRtg comes from a better scheme and better players around and better coach, not superior talent). DRob wasn't any good at low post offense, and Hakeem was a top 3 all time.

DRob is in the 5-7 area as a Center depending on what you label TD as - that's great, but it doesn't buy you top 8 or top 10 all time. He comes out in the mid teens to very low twenties at worst. A HOF all the way, but not creme de la creme.

Sorry, got to have Hakeem above him. TD anyone? Malone? Probably not - although he was Kryptonite to Jabbar. Gilmore anone?

How old was he?

Drob was 24 because he came from the Navy. His age does not mean he had NBA experience.

Hakeem did not eat Davids lunch (outside of that one series). That argument is not even close to accurate. Points wise and rebound wise they were probably close to each other head to head but David would shoot better and win most the games.

Speak to Spurs fan and Rockets fan from that era and ask them if what you said is true. Both had some good players as supporting cast but not great players.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 03:32 PM
I know one stat is not proof, but when one guy has like 5 of the all time top 40 win share seasons ever and many of these guys considered better don't have a season in the top 100, I have to go against the eye test/delusion/huggery that is just innate in people when you even mention Bird,or Magic. You take them off there teams and put them on the Spurs team, Take David and put him on Showtime Lakers or Celtics, and D Rob takes there place as #2 or #4 ever. Give David 4 rings and 4 finals MVP's just because he happened to be on showtime Lakers. He maight be the GOAT with his stats to boot.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 03:36 PM
Drob was 24 because he came from the Navy. His age does not mean he had NBA experience.

Hakeem did not eat Davids lunch (outside of that one series). That argument is not even close to accurate. Points wise and rebound wise they were probably close to each other head to head but David would shoot better and win most the games.

Speak to Spurs fan and Rockets fan from that era and ask them if what you said is true. Both had some good players as supporting cast but not great players.

Also if Hakeem team was worse than D-Robs, then his Win Shares would reflect that. DRobs win shares are high not just because he won a lot of games, but because he did more for his team than all these other guys because his players did not produce crap. David averages more Win shares than Hakeem has even in the playoffs because his team support was worse. Ill take Clyde, thorpe, cassell, jet, Horry over Rodman, ellis, elliot, del negro, Avery.

SanAntonioSpurs23
09-12-2013, 03:38 PM
Under rated for sure and gets too much blame for his playoff failures, but no way is he top 8 all time.

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 03:40 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html

More proof, I mean supporting evidence

IKnowHoops
09-12-2013, 03:46 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_per_g_season.html

Here is more, not saying he is number #1 at everything but hes always at the top. Unlike some that are nowhere to be found near the top on some stats, David is always there.

MonroeFAN
09-12-2013, 03:53 PM
Class act... Hall of Famer... Great two-way center... Athletic freak of nature

But no way in **** is he a top 8 player of all-time. Heck he's probably the 8th best center of all-time.

Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Moses, Russel and Mikan are probably all better than him at that spot.

Why do people continue to list Wilt and Mikan among top centers of all time? They shouldn't even be considered basketball players. David Robinson is an incredible player, who played against great talent. Top 8, maybe not... but enough of this prehistoric non-sense.

tredigs
09-12-2013, 04:00 PM
Why do people continue to list Wilt and Mikan among top centers of all time? They shouldn't even be considered basketball players. David Robinson is an incredible player, who played against great talent. Top 8, maybe not... but enough of this prehistoric non-sense.

Totally! I mean, Wilt Chamberlain wouldn't even be a top 5 center in this NBA, amirite?

MonroeFAN
09-12-2013, 04:02 PM
who knows? The guy played against dinosaurs

Tony_Starks
09-12-2013, 04:18 PM
How did I guess this would be advance stat driven. Lol Sorry I'll go with my eyes and the Dream.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 04:41 PM
Totally! I mean, Wilt Chamberlain wouldn't even be a top 5 center in this NBA, amirite?

Of course not. He's dead

tredigs
09-12-2013, 04:41 PM
who knows? The guy played against dinosaurs

Because we saw him go against Bill Russell and Kareem to name just two, and it doesn't take too high of a BBIQ to realize an unfathomably athletic 7 footer with legendary strength and elite offensive moves + rim protection would absolutely dismantle this league?

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 05:21 PM
who knows? The guy played against dinosaurs

That is why some people say he is #1. You ever play against a dinosaur? They have scary speed and power. Takes real skill and smarts just to survive. :)

tredigs
09-12-2013, 05:22 PM
MonroeFan, let's take a look at a Center we just voted top 5 in the today's NBA - Roy Hibbert - "running" the floor (I'd say he wasn't going full speed, but I've literally never seen him move faster). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B17zZwflso

Now, let's take a look at wilt (scroll to the one minute mark to see him run the floor) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJpJ6WK_qTg

That's what you call all-world acceleration... in any era. Not to mention being multiple tiers better in passing, scoring, paint protection and rebounding. Who's the dinosaur, exactly?

Method28
09-12-2013, 05:23 PM
By the logic of this stat, CP3 poops on Magic. Kobe's first appearance on the list if i'm correct is listed at 198 haha DRob was great but this stat seems to skew things a bit.

Guppyfighter
09-12-2013, 05:32 PM
There is no such thing as statistically-formed proof in basketball. Stats are supporting evidence they are not proof of anything.

:eyebrow:

tredigs
09-12-2013, 05:34 PM
:eyebrow:

He's 100% right. Baseball has not even quite gotten there and ultimately it's impossible to ever fully do so (there's too many human variables that just can't be accounted for; let's throw in illness or nursing undocumented injury as two clear ones), and it's checkers compared to chess when it comes to the NBA.

PurpleLynch
09-12-2013, 05:48 PM
MonroeFan, let's take a look at a Center we just voted top 5 in the today's NBA - Roy Hibbert - "running" the floor (I'd say he wasn't going full speed, but I've literally never seen him move faster). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B17zZwflso

Now, let's take a look at wilt (scroll to the one minute mark to see him run the floor) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJpJ6WK_qTg

That's what you call all-world acceleration... in any era. Not to mention being multiple tiers better in passing, scoring, paint protection and rebounding. Who's the dinosaur, exactly?

Oh my goodness,it was amazing. Never seen this footage.

jimm120
09-12-2013, 06:08 PM
Ewing was better...and Ewing is only a top 28-top45 player. David Robinson is from 40-50

Hawkeye15
09-12-2013, 06:56 PM
Ewing was better...and Ewing is only a top 28-top45 player. David Robinson is from 40-50

Ewing was absolutely not better dude.

Chronz
09-12-2013, 07:22 PM
Why do people continue to list Wilt and Mikan among top centers of all time? They shouldn't even be considered basketball players. David Robinson is an incredible player, who played against great talent. Top 8, maybe not... but enough of this prehistoric non-sense.
Why do people question the greatness of guys who paved the way?

Chronz
09-12-2013, 07:24 PM
If your game doesn't translate as well into the post season, can you truly use regular season accomplishments as the crux of your superiority?

ILLUSIONIST^248
09-12-2013, 07:31 PM
Class act... Hall of Famer... Great two-way center... Athletic freak of nature

But no way in **** is he a top 8 player of all-time. Heck he's probably the 8th best center of all-time.

Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Moses, Russel and Mikan are probably all better than him at that spot.

This, close thread.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 07:36 PM
It took The Admiral an number of years to develop a Center's offensive game, He scored in high figures because he was so much quicker than the Centers that guarded.

When Warriors upset Spurs in the first round, Nelson had a PF guard The Admiral, and it severely affected Robinson's offensive game, and got into his head.

Don Nelson is a maniac, but he he did use some strategies that worked on occasion.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 07:39 PM
David Robinson's career postseason per is 23 and ws/48 .199(better than dream), very good actually

Now please give the winning percentage of each players team in the playoffs, and total wins, and times seeded top 4 and bottom 4. Now compare the WS shares of each player vs wins of the team and repeat what you wrote with the same level of performance.

I grew up thinking Russell was the best, and Alcindor was an amazing force, and Wilt was erratic, and after that Shaquille was a freak. Hakeem is the best all around center in NBA history at his peak, and all the others are more vulnerable than he was to issues. Wilt could not handle Malone. Wilt and Shaquille could not hit FT's well enough o not be sent to the line at the end of close games. Russell was a complimentary player. DRob was a great face up high post center loathe to go to the low post. Statistically his D looks great. He wasn't a match for Hakeem.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 07:41 PM
Ewing was absolutely not better dude.

No doubt.

jaydubb
09-12-2013, 07:46 PM
A top 8 player would NOT often perform bad in the playoffs

Really? My memory says most have them have at least at times done just that.

Ok, let me rephrase what I meant when I said "not often perform bad"..

I know everyone is human, everyone has bad games, but if your one of the best of all time, you would not have bad games regularly on a consistent basis especially in the playoffs..

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 07:47 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_per_g_season.html

Here is more, not saying he is number #1 at everything but hes always at the top. Unlike some that are nowhere to be found near the top on some stats, David is always there.

Win shares (all forms) is directly tied to team wins. comparing a player with more or less requires an effort to adjust. DRtg is connected strongly to team philosophy and cast of players. Any stat that shows DRob's D to be in the same league as Hakeem is kaput.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 07:48 PM
Ewing was better...and Ewing is only a top 28-top45 player. David Robinson is from 40-50

My heart says hell yeah Patrick was better but I know in my head Drob was better.

Shaq
Drob
Hakeem
Patrick

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 07:49 PM
Now please give the winning percentage of each players team in the playoffs, and total wins, and times seeded top 4 and bottom 4. Now compare the WS shares of each player vs wins of the team and repeat what you wrote with the same level of performance.

I grew up thinking Russell was the best, and Alcindor was an amazing force, and Wilt was erratic, and after that Shaquille was a freak. Hakeem is the best all around center in NBA history at his peak, and all the others are more vulnerable than he was to issues. Wilt could not handle Malone. Wilt and Shaquille could not hit FT's well enough o not be sent to the line at the end of close games. Russell was a complimentary player. DRob was a great face up high post center loathe to go to the low post. Statistically his D looks great. He wasn't a match for Hakeem.

Two problems with your post.

Wilt could not handle Moses, and Russell was a complimentary player

tredigs
09-12-2013, 07:54 PM
Oh my goodness,it was amazing. Never seen this footage.

Isn't that insane? When you see footage like this it makes you think whether or not there's a player in the NBA who is currently faster, stronger or could jump higher. Including guards.


Two problems with your post.

Wilt could not handle Moses, and Russell was a complimentary player
Agreed, especially considering Malone and Wilt played in different eras.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 08:02 PM
Two problems with your post.

Wilt could not handle Moses, and Russell was a complimentary player

It is his opinion but not fact.

In the years that both Drob and Hakeem played Drob won more Defensive player and All NBA defense first team awards.

This is coming from a guy that hated the Spurs and rooted hard against them.

TheMightyHumph
09-12-2013, 08:07 PM
Another problem is that his opinion is just not fact. In the years that Drob and Hakeem both played Drob won Aore Defensive player and all NBA defense first team awards. This is coming from a guy that hated the Spurs and rooted hard against them.

Oh man, Dave could play defense. But having to guard a PF, he was not as effective

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 08:09 PM
Drob was 24 because he came from the Navy. His age does not mean he had NBA experience.

No kidding, do you think I was going to say he played with a beard? He came to the NBA stronger and more filled out than most - that is an advantage.


Hakeem did not eat Davids lunch (outside of that one series). That argument is not even close to accurate. Points wise and rebound wise they were probably close to each other head to head but David would shoot better and win most the games.

It's a team game. Hakeem's teams were almost always worse, his coaching was often worse, the other players he played with were worse. DRob has I am sure among the consensus top 50 players all time a winning percentage in the top 4 if not higher.

Please recount his teams winning percentage, playoff seeding, and results and make the same claim. DRob's teams results in the playoffs before TD is brutal. Now tell me that in NBA history you can name more than two other teams that won the title with a crappier supporting cast than Hakeem did in that year. Go for it.


Speak to Spurs fan and Rockets fan from that era and ask them if what you said is true. Both had some good players as supporting cast but not great players..

Talk to whom? I started watching the NBA in 1965. There are a lot more people that say Hakeem ranks above DRob. As a 4/5 in College I watched all the upcoming centers and bigs. Robinson was excellent. Fast, coachable, what's not to like. I have him above Russell and Malone. But Hakeem had the outside shot, but his post game was world's past DRob, and his D in the paint was easily better too. He's just better, and it's not all that close, and you need to watch more, and stop treating WS like it's a true ordered list for players from teams with more than +/- 2 games apart in wins in a given year. Also the D stats are near pathetic, and I'm trying to get away from them.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 08:14 PM
Because we saw him go against Bill Russell and Kareem to name just two, and it doesn't take too high of a BBIQ to realize an unfathomably athletic 7 footer with legendary strength and elite offensive moves + rim protection would absolutely dismantle this league?

As long as he learns to shoot FT's, not spend much if his time in clinics for you know, and decide he wants to commit, and see if can score, rebound, pass, and play D as hard and well as he can ALL of the time.

tredigs
09-12-2013, 08:19 PM
As long as he learns to shoot FT's, not spend much if his time in clinics for you know, and decide he wants to commit, and see if can score, rebound, pass, and play D as hard and well as he can ALL of the time.

Meh, we see that in D. Howard from a mental standpoint along with the 50% foul shooting, and this is a guy who doesn't hold a candle to Wilt's athleticism. Yet, still by far the best Center in the current NBA pre-back surgery.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 08:26 PM
Two problems with your post.

Wilt could not handle Moses, and Russell was a complimentary player

Sorry, I'm using an apple keyboard which I hate. I meant Jabbar could not handle Moses (and other tough guys made him suffer as well)

I stand by my take on Russell. He wasn't a great or even very good shooter even with only four guys at/over 6'8" and a 12' wide lane his first 3 years. He was a great offensive rebounder, and passer after Cousy retired. In the ~145 games he faced wilt, wilt hammered him for 28.7 PPg and 28.7 RPG. Once the 16' lane and most teams had 7 footers, his offense was done except a few famous outings per year. No sir. Wholly overrated due to the near perfect fit of coach/GM/team and the very small league with less rounds of playoffs, and most years virtually no competition.

bagwell368
09-12-2013, 08:29 PM
Meh, we see that in D. Howard from a mental standpoint along with the 50% foul shooting, and this is a guy who doesn't hold a candle to Wilt's athleticism. Yet, still by far the best Center in the current NBA pre-back surgery.

Don't take me wrong, if you could harness him with the same intensity of KG, then he'd kill the centers now. I think the mid 90's crew would give him a much better test.

jam
09-12-2013, 08:33 PM
It's very easy to make a case for DRob as a top 20 player all time, but next to impossible to rank him as a top8 player all time.

SLY WILLIAMS
09-12-2013, 10:28 PM
No kidding, do you think I was going to say he played with a beard? He came to the NBA stronger and more filled out than most - that is an advantage.

It's a team game. Hakeem's teams were almost always worse, his coaching was often worse, the other players he played with were worse. DRob has I am sure among the consensus top 50 players all time a winning percentage in the top 4 if not higher.

Please recount his teams winning percentage, playoff seeding, and results and make the same claim. DRob's teams results in the playoffs before TD is brutal. Now tell me that in NBA history you can name more than two other teams that won the title with a crappier supporting cast than Hakeem did in that year. Go for it.

Talk to whom? I started watching the NBA in 1965. There are a lot more people that say Hakeem ranks above DRob. As a 4/5 in College I watched all the upcoming centers and bigs. Robinson was excellent. Fast, coachable, what's not to like. I have him above Russell and Malone. But Hakeem had the outside shot, but his post game was world's past DRob, and his D in the paint was easily better too. He's just better, and it's not all that close, and you need to watch more, and stop treating WS like it's a true ordered list for players from teams with more than +/- 2 games apart in wins in a given year. Also the D stats are near pathetic, and I'm trying to get away from them.

It is your opinion that Hakeems supporting cast were worse than Drobs. Ralph Sampson, Otus Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Sam Cassel, Vernon Maxwell, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, etc were just as good if not better than Drobs supporting cast before Tim Duncan. Drobs winning percentage is high in huge part because of Drob. Its not like that Spurs team won anything before Drob or the season Drob missed.

It is your opinion that Hakeems coaches were worse. I'm speaking about Drob in his prime before back injury and before Tim Duncan. Larry Brown, Jerry Tarkenian, John Lucas and Bob Hill were no better than Bill Fitch, Don Chaney and Rudy Tomjonovich.

You started watching the NBA in 1965 but how many Spurs games did you get to watch in the early 1990's in the Boston area? Was it as many as somebody living in South Texas?

You just threw out a red herring about a WS stat. I never even mentioned a WS stat in any of my posts. I go by what I saw when the Spurs played the Rockets in the early 1990's which was often but rarely shown in Boston is my guess.

You say Hakeem had a better outside shot. You base that on what? Do you know where and how David shot his jump shot? It was actually pretty good. If guys laid off on him the had no problem pulling the trigger on his left handed jump shot inside the free throw line. Hakeem had a better back to the basket post game but Drob drove to the hoop for a layup or a dunk as fast as any center I ever saw. David shot a better fg%. David shot a better FT% David shot a better 3point %. Those are facts not opinions.

You say Hakeems D in the paint was easily better. That is your opinion. I think David was just as good or a better defender and once David came in to the league David won more defensive awards than Hakeem

FlashBolt
09-12-2013, 10:46 PM
This is a joke. Robinson isn't even the greatest Spurs of all time. He would barely even crack anyone's top 5 greatest centers. Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, and possibly Russell or Robinson. You lack solid evidence. W/S is not proof at all. It's a very complicated and flawed advanced statistic that no one except misinformed fans take as creditable evidence. When you look at what Robinson has achieved, what puts him above everyone else?

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 01:19 AM
He's 100% right. Baseball has not even quite gotten there and ultimately it's impossible to ever fully do so (there's too many human variables that just can't be accounted for; let's throw in illness or nursing undocumented injury as two clear ones), and it's checkers compared to chess when it comes to the NBA.

You know what man, when I first came on the site, and I said that Lebron was playing better than Kevin Durant and you said he was not and you based your entire argument off of Wins Shares and TS%.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 01:23 AM
My Own Questions About Mikan and DRob,
In my All-Time Top 25 thinking the two most-difficult to judge cases for me have always been:
Mikan and Robinson. Mikan because NBA basketball was far inferior in his epoch to the Wilt-Russell and all subsequent eras. So, how DO you judge him. He was dominant (and he won more Chips than he's given credit for. The last one he won in the NBL was in a much better league and against better competition than the pre-NBA, BAA had - they just played in bigger cities, were, inevitably going to out-complete; and did.)

DRob was way up there based on regular season performance. Not nearly so based on Play-Off performance. (In this regard he is quite similar to Karl Malone.) There was something exquisitely beautiful in DRob's game. Great teammate, always fair, respectful, super-cerebral.

I can not justify him in my Top 15; but just outside it for sure.

WILT
Lastly, about Wilt. During his playing days Wilt was: THE biggest, strongest, fastest and most durable (stamina-wise) guy in the League; a total freak of nature. He high-jumped over 6ft 6 inches (which is a very different skill than rebounding requires); he long jumped super-well; he was very fast in the 440. Long after retirement from the NBA, professional Volleyball players claimed he was THE best blocker ever. When we talk about Wilt's speed, we mean to say NOT ONLY that he had incredible speed (better than anybody else in the entire league); BUT ALSO, that he consistently ran the floor on fast breaks, even after grabbing a defensive rebound and passing out, he often caught up on the break. He DID put out the speed-effort consistently.

His strength (as distinguished from his incredible stamina) was legendary. There are so many stories from so many sources. He hung with Arnold Shwarzenegger, the legendary body-building, during the making of Conan, the Barbarian. He had NO real technique, so he watch Arnold bench press, what most of the top guys could barely do 5 reps with. Wilt cranked out 20 in the time Arnold couldn't do 10. Arnold refused to enter the weight room after that. He lifted up two NBA players, one with each hand, to prevent fights. He WAS stronger than Shaq. He probably was the greatest physical athlete of the entire 1900s - he had it all in spades!

In my opinion he was hands-down the best player of his era. He was the best offensive player (despite his horrible foul-shooting); he was at worst, the 2nd best defensive player. I am NOT convinced that Russell was better than him at defense; that Bill DOES have the reputation as such. Players from that era mention at least one game where Wilt blocked over 20 shots ( think it was 27)! Imagine that! Late in his career, after he had gained 55 pounds from his initial 260 up to 315, there's video of him grabbing a shot at the top of the backboard at 35 years of age.

WILT VS RUSSELL
They played each other many many times; and Wilt basically not only beat Russell, he dominated him virtually every single time. He averaged 27+ pts and 27+ rebounds against Russell over those 140 games! End of discussion people.

IF he had played for Red Auerbach, there would be NO discussion of who the GOAT was. How many close games and series did his teams lose to the Celtic All-Star Team (with at worst the 2nd greatest basketball coach of all time)? Just switch coaches and we're talking easily at least 3 more Chips - that's 5; and with everything Wilt did; and him being THE most dominant NBA player ever of any particular era ... that'd be "all she wrote".

THE TOUGHNESS OF THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION IN WILT'S ERA
I DID watch a large portion of Wilt's televised games. So I know quite a bit about the eye test. But my point here is that people forget something utterly important about the smaller league in those days. What talent there was was concentrated onto fewer teams; and each team played those other teams much more frequently per season. Wilt's teams battled other teams with great players MORE frequently than teams do today! How the heck else could he have racked up over 140 games against Russell?

WILT, THEORETICALLY, IN OTHER ERAS

I personally have no doubt that if he played in today's NBA he'd be easily the best center in the League and by a humongous margin. Further, I can't name ANY era in which he would NOT have been at worst the #2 best center for 10 consecutive years.

My GOAT LIST:
#1 KAJ (5 more very great years than the other 3 top guys - that's a huge margin, plus the unique SkyHook.) The thing that hurts him the most (compared to MJ and Magic) was huge but NOT directly basketball-playing related; it was PR - the NBA's PR sucked in his day; and he personally was a lousy interview. Imagine him with MJ/Magic's League-Wide PR PLUS their personal interview magnetism; AND THEM SUFFEREING FROM HIS; then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

#2 Magic (best teammate ever; and I rate teamwork higher than anything else, period.)
#3 MJ
#4 Wilt. (everybody above him had 3-4 more Chips; nobody below him comes close to being as decade-long dominant as him)

I would NOT rage against any other ordering of these 4 guys; but I could NOT accept any of them NOT being in the top 5.

RUSSELL & bagwell
Something to keep in mind. bagwell, who imo KNOWS the Celtics at least as well as anyone (and is an all-time fan of theirs); ranks Russell around 16; I rank Russell 16-18, we fundamentally agree. But my point here is; before encountering bagwell on these boards, I'd never known a single serious, long-time Celtic die-hard fan who ranked Russell lower than #3 All-Time. Usually they have him at #1; or at worst #2). I spent my 4 high school years very near Boston; everyone I knew was rabid Celtics fan. I've continued to know personally or know of/about quite a number of Celtics fans over the last 50 years.

It takes extreme guts, impartiality and knowledge to take his, bagwell's, position. The man knows who/what Bill Russell was.

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 01:27 AM
Win shares (all forms) is directly tied to team wins. comparing a player with more or less requires an effort to adjust. DRtg is connected strongly to team philosophy and cast of players. Any stat that shows DRob's D to be in the same league as Hakeem is kaput.

If this is true, then why does David Robinson have more win shares than Hakeem During the regular season and During the playoffs? Did David win more in the playoffs too? Are we arguing over nothing because at the end of the day David's teams won more than Olajuwon's teams in the playoffs and case closed David won more, stats more, and better period?

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 01:45 AM
This is a joke. Robinson isn't even the greatest Spurs of all time. He would barely even crack anyone's top 5 greatest centers. Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, and possibly Russell or Robinson. You lack solid evidence. W/S is not proof at all. It's a very complicated and flawed advanced statistic that no one except misinformed fans take as creditable evidence. When you look at what Robinson has achieved, what puts him above everyone else?

Well first off, those five centers you named excluding Russell, I have them above Magic and Bird. And what I mean by that is they made more of an impact on the game than both Magic or Bird. I feel if you were to surround any of these centers with as much talent that was around Bird and Magic, they would have been more successful and more dominant.

Now you asked what he has achieved? Well when the team around you is very bad, then your not going to win much. David never played with anyone close to the level of Jabbar, Worthy, Parish, Mchale, or Johnson. Those are all Hall of famers that can score. Clyde on Houston was better than anyone David ever played with. Thorpe was better than anyone David ever played with.

Individually David has done everything an individual can do. Every dream team he was on he was among the top producers. I even think he lead all olympians in scoring at one point. Think about this? What if David would of been in his prime playing with Tim Duncan, Manu, tony Parker etc. What if he would of had the luxury that all these guys you put ahead of him had. They won two rings and David was decrepit for the last one and still gave 14 and 17 at 37 years old. He was a shell of himself in the first one and they rolled every team they saw. I bet they get at least six rings.

tredigs
09-13-2013, 01:46 AM
You know what man, when I first came on the site, and I said that Lebron was playing better than Kevin Durant and you said he was not and you based your entire argument off of Wins Shares and TS%.

No, I said that was arguable at that particular time and used WS/48 and TS% as two reasons why that was the case. Which at that point of the season it absolutely was. I have never and would never be so ignorant to make entire arguments of two players based solely on WinShares, TS%, PER, etc. Lazy posts happen, but if a good argument comes up between players, those are just a couple of a ton of different angles that would be brought up. You were a little blinded at that time by your love for Lebron - to the point where you thought I absolutely hated him (despite him being one of my favorite players) - and might have just saw what you wanted.

FlashBolt
09-13-2013, 01:49 AM
[/B]

Well first off, those five centers you named excluding Russell, I have them above Magic and Bird. And what I mean by that is they made more of an impact on the game than both Magic or Bird. I feel if you were to surround any of these centers with as much talent that was around Bird and Magic, they would have been more successful and more dominant.

Well, we can all have fairy tale stories of how things would've turned out, no? I don't think Robinson was as good as you probably think he is. He's a great player but there's no way he is close to top eight. It's very unfair to discredit Magic and Bird because of the team they were brought into. I agree with you that sometimes the situation of a team can make or break a player, clearly Magic and Bird benefited off their team(s). But going by the history books, Robinson is not eligible for a top 10. Maybe somewhere in the 15-20.

savvy1803
09-13-2013, 02:24 AM
My Own Questions About Mikan and DRob,
In my All-Time Top 25 thinking the two most-difficult to judge cases for me have always been:
Mikan and Robinson. Mikan because NBA basketball was far inferior in his epoch to the Wilt-Russell and all subsequent eras. So, how DO you judge him. He was dominant (and he won more Chips than he's given credit for. The last one he won in the NBL was in a much better league and against better competition than the pre-NBA, BAA had - they just played in bigger cities, were, inevitably going to out-complete; and did.)

DRob was way up there based on regular season performance. Not nearly so based on Play-Off performance. (In this regard he is quite similar to Karl Malone.) There was something exquisitely beautiful in DRob's game. Great teammate, always fair, respectful, super-cerebral.

I can not justify him in my Top 15; but just outside it for sure.

WILT
Lastly, about Wilt. During his playing days Wilt was: THE biggest, strongest, fastest and most durable (stamina-wise) guy in the League; a total freak of nature. He high-jumped over 6ft 6 inches (which is a very different skill than rebounding requires); he long jumped super-well; he was very fast in the 440. Long after retirement from the NBA, professional Volleyball players claimed he was THE best blocker ever. When we talk about Wilt's speed, we mean to say NOT ONLY that he had incredible speed (better than anybody else in the entire league); BUT ALSO, that he consistently ran the floor on fast breaks, even after grabbing a defensive rebound and passing out, he often caught up on the break. He DID put out the speed-effort consistently.

His strength (as distinguished from his incredible stamina) was legendary. There are so many stories from so many sources. He hung with Arnold Shwarzenegger, the legendary body-building, during the making of Conan, the Barbarian. He had NO real technique, so he watch Arnold bench press, what most of the top guys could barely do 5 reps with. Wilt cranked out 20 in the time Arnold couldn't do 10. Arnold refused to enter the weight room after that. He lifted up two NBA players, one with each hand, to prevent fights. He WAS stronger than Shaq. He probably was the greatest physical athlete of the entire 1900s - he had it all in spades!

In my opinion he was hands-down the best player of his era. He was the best offensive player (despite his horrible foul-shooting); he was at worst, the 2nd best defensive player. I am NOT convinced that Russell was better than him at defense; that Bill DOES have the reputation as such. Players from that era mention at least one game where Wilt blocked over 20 shots ( think it was 27)! Imagine that! Late in his career, after he had gained 55 pounds from his initial 260 up to 315, there's video of him grabbing a shot at the top of the backboard at 35 years of age.

WILT VS RUSSELL
They played each other many many times; and Wilt basically not only beat Russell, he dominated him virtually every single time. He averaged 27+ pts and 27+ rebounds against Russell over those 140 games! End of discussion people.

IF he had played for Red Auerbach, there would be NO discussion of who the GOAT was. How many close games and series did his teams lose to the Celtic All-Star Team (with at worst the 2nd greatest basketball coach of all time)? Just switch coaches and we're talking easily at least 3 more Chips - that's 5; and with everything Wilt did; and him being THE most dominant NBA player ever of any particular era ... that'd be "all she wrote".

THE TOUGHNESS OF THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION IN WILT'S ERA
I DID watch a large portion of Wilt's televised games. So I know quite a bit about the eye test. But my point here is that people forget something utterly important about the smaller league in those days. What talent there was was concentrated onto fewer teams; and each team played those other teams much more frequently per season. Wilt's teams battled other teams with great players MORE frequently than teams do today! How the heck else could he have racked up over 140 games against Russell?

WILT, THEORETICALLY, IN OTHER ERAS

I personally have no doubt that if he played in today's NBA he'd be easily the best center in the League and by a humongous margin. Further, I can't name ANY era in which he would NOT have been at worst the #2 best center for 10 consecutive years.

My GOAT LIST:
#1 KAJ (5 more very great years than the other 3 top guys - that's a huge margin, plus the unique SkyHook.) The thing that hurts him the most (compared to MJ and Magic) was huge but NOT directly basketball-playing related; it was PR - the NBA's PR sucked in his day; and he personally was a lousy interview. Imagine him with MJ/Magic's League-Wide PR PLUS their personal interview magnetism; AND THEM SUFFEREING FROM HIS; then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

#2 Magic (best teammate ever; and I rate teamwork higher than anything else, period.)
#3 MJ
#4 Wilt. (everybody above him had 3-4 more Chips; nobody below him comes close to being as decade-long dominant as him)

I would NOT rage against any other ordering of these 4 guys; but I could NOT accept any of them NOT being in the top 5.

RUSSELL & bagwell
Something to keep in mind. bagwell, who imo KNOWS the Celtics at least as well as anyone (and is an all-time fan of theirs); ranks Russell around 16; I rank Russell 16-18, we fundamentally agree. But my point here is; before encountering bagwell on these boards, I'd never known a single serious, long-time Celtic die-hard fan who ranked Russell lower than #3 All-Time. Usually they have him at #1; or at worst #2). I spent my 4 high school years very near Boston; everyone I knew was rabid Celtics fan. I've continued to know personally or know of/about quite a number of Celtics fans over the last 50 years.

It takes extreme guts, impartiality and knowledge to take his, bagwell's, position. The man knows who/what Bill Russell was.

This was an outstanding post , well done !

hidalgo
09-13-2013, 02:52 AM
if David Robinson was in his prime right now, he'd be the 2nd best player in the nba for sure. he'd embarrass Dwight. he was that good

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 03:17 AM
No, I said that was arguable at that particular time and used WS/48 and TS% as two reasons why that was the case. Which at that point of the season it absolutely was. I have never and would never be so ignorant to make entire arguments of two players based solely on WinShares, TS%, PER, etc. Lazy posts happen, but if a good argument comes up between players, those are just a couple of a ton of different angles that would be brought up. You were a little blinded at that time by your love for Lebron - to the point where you thought I absolutely hated him (despite him being one of my favorite players) - and might have just saw what you wanted.

I thought I was the one saying it was even, and you were the one saying definitely Durant because of TS and win shares.

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 03:25 AM
Well, we can all have fairy tale stories of how things would've turned out, no? I don't think Robinson was as good as you probably think he is. He's a great player but there's no way he is close to top eight. It's very unfair to discredit Magic and Bird because of the team they were brought into. I agree with you that sometimes the situation of a team can make or break a player, clearly Magic and Bird benefited off their team(s). But going by the history books, Robinson is not eligible for a top 10. Maybe somewhere in the 15-20.

Trust me, you are discrediting Robinson much more, for being on the team he was on and you don't even know it. How could His Spurs team compete against a Boston,LA, or Bulls? Even a Utah. David brought the Spurs to the largest turn around from one year to the next in NBA history (at the time). Thats a lot more telling about your impact than winning a championship on a stacked team.

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 03:27 AM
I give Lebron more credit for making the finals with that Cavs team than I ever will for winning a ring with the Heat.

Guppyfighter
09-13-2013, 03:42 AM
I give Lebron more credit for making the finals with that Cavs team than I ever will for winning a ring with the Heat.

Wade's TS percentage in the playoffs was 490 and Bosh didn't score at all in multiple games. Including game seven of the NBA finals.

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2013, 11:51 AM
I stand by my take on Russell. He wasn't a great or even very good shooter even with only four guys at/over 6'8" and a 12' wide lane his first 3 years. He was a great offensive rebounder, and passer after Cousy retired. In the ~145 games he faced wilt, wilt hammered him for 28.7 PPg and 28.7 RPG. Once the 16' lane and most teams had 7 footers, his offense was done except a few famous outings per year. No sir. Wholly overrated due to the near perfect fit of coach/GM/team and the very small league with less rounds of playoffs, and most years virtually no competition.

Russell being a complimentary player is a very funny thought.

Longhornfan1234
09-13-2013, 12:09 PM
Robinson is top 20 player of all-time. If he outside your top 30...you're criminally underrating him.

bagwell368
09-13-2013, 12:50 PM
It is your opinion that Hakeems supporting cast were worse than Drobs. Ralph Sampson, Otus Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Sam Cassel, Vernon Maxwell, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, etc were just as good if not better than Drobs supporting cast before Tim Duncan. Drobs winning percentage is high in huge part because of Drob. Its not like that Spurs team won anything before Drob or the season Drob missed.

You need to look at the amount of years those guys played with him and what stage of their career they were in. For instance Sampson's last two years were garbage, but due to his name he made the AS team. Hakeem was past his prime when CB showed up, same with Pippen. Drexler was past his prime when he had his short stint there. Nope, the best long term player he had to play with was Thorpe.


It is your opinion that Hakeems coaches were worse. I'm speaking about Drob in his prime before back injury and before Tim Duncan. Larry Brown, Jerry Tarkenian, John Lucas and Bob Hill were no better than Bill Fitch, Don Chaney and Rudy Tomjonovich.

Fitch was good (but generally disliked by most players), the others were crap.


You started watching the NBA in 1965 but how many Spurs games did you get to watch in the early 1990's in the Boston area? Was it as many as somebody living in South Texas?

Some. No. I lean on my experience as a player and coach and long term fan to be able to understand players faster and better than most. I also used to go to a lot of games - since about 2007 I haven't been able to make many. I get about 15x more from being in the stands than watching on TV, the camera follows the game which is only a fraction of where the game is. Coaches and players on the bench from the floor, reactions of players off camera. Yeah I believe I am well qualified to speak about both players.


You just threw out a red herring about a WS stat. I never even mentioned a WS stat in any of my posts. I go by what I saw when the Spurs played the Rockets in the early 1990's which was often but rarely shown in Boston is my guess.

OK, do realize I was speed typing when I issued that long line of posts. CBS, and cable showed a lot of games from all over, in particular marquee Center match-ups back then.


You say Hakeem had a better outside shot.

No I said or meant to say he had a good enough outside shot so he couldn't just be covered like a low post scorer. If you don't remember how many 14-17 foot jumpers he took and hit, then I don't know what to day.


Do you know where and how David shot his jump shot? It was actually pretty good.

Almost all of DRob's offense was face up and 8 feet or farther out, unless he had a lay-up or Mikan shot.


If guys laid off on him the had no problem pulling the trigger on his left handed jump shot inside the free throw line.

Of course. Over the past few years that I've poster on the NBA Forum, I've had DRob as 5th or 6th best Center. Is that an insult somehow? The past two years it's been mostly 5th. Since he had no real low post game his face up offense would HAVE to be excellent to be rated that high, right?


Hakeem had a better back to the basket post game but Drob drove to the hoop for a layup or a dunk as fast as any center I ever saw. David shot a better fg%. David shot a better FT% David shot a better 3point %. Those are facts not opinions.

Dur to the weakness of the bigs on Houston and the team overall he was often double teamed. DRob had a better team and was double teamed well less often.


You say Hakeems D in the paint was easily better. That is your opinion. I think David was just as good or a better defender and once David came in to the league David won more defensive awards than Hakeem

Yeah my opinion going back to Russell is that as an overall defender inside and outside at the 5, than in his prime he was the best defender of all time. DRob was probably even 14' from the basket and out, which is excellent, but inside of that he was not a match for Hakeem.

DRob played for better teams than Hakeem, awards are often popularity contests and/or awards for players on winning teams. Means nothing. Being a 4/5 on a D1 college team and spending 14 years as a coach and almost 50 as a fan gives me a position that I am quite clear about - Hakeem's D > DRob. As a big DRob's D is probably no worse than 7th best all time, but the difference between 7th and 14th is much less than 1st and 7th for instance.

bagwell368
09-13-2013, 12:55 PM
Russell being a complimentary player is a very funny thought.

Complimentary in the sense of not being a player like say Wilt that could win on his own. He's a consummate teammate obviously - so when I say compliment, it's a compliment, not an insult. But all you have to do is put Russell on all of Wilt's teams and visa versa and 1966-67 Philly title is gone. Maybe Bill could have pulled of the '72 title with the Lakers, but probably not due to age.

Did you see him play live? Did you grow up being taught by male relatives and Coaches that worshipped him as the GOAT? It's taken me a long time to parse out Russell from his legend, and believe me without a doubt he ended up in the best slot any Center has ever found himself.

You go look up the Pistons for instance of his rookie year, and put him there. What happens? No title, no HOF, and he'd be a forgotten figure today.

Bill isn't the GOAT, and he's not a top 5 Center either. He's a top 20 all time, that's great, just don't get confused.

bagwell368
09-13-2013, 01:00 PM
If this is true, then why does David Robinson have more win shares than Hakeem During the regular season and During the playoffs? Did David win more in the playoffs too? Are we arguing over nothing because at the end of the day David's teams won more than Olajuwon's teams in the playoffs and case closed David won more, stats more, and better period?

Because DRob's teams won more games than Hakeems, had better seeding, and yet somehow Hakeem won two titles as the main cog and DRob did not.

We are arguing over your over reliance as Win Shares as a truth teller w/o making adjustments for players on teams with fairly different records. There are MORE Win Shares on teams with more WINS by DEFINITION. Hence a player with a team that wins 45 games vs a player that averages 55 wins and plays the same amount of time and is equal in every way measurable will have more win shares. Well there you go, win shares are a great thing, but, has definite limits. Two guys on the same team, same minutes and same shift? Now that's going to be pretty informative.

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2013, 01:40 PM
Did you see him play live? Did you grow up being taught by male relatives and Coaches that worshipped him? It's taken me a long time to parse out Russell from his legend, and believe me without a doubt he ended up in the best slot any very good or better Center in that time or later could have found himself - in the history of the sport and including all positions, he's still #1.

You go look up the Pistons for instance of his rookie year, and put him there. What happens? No title, probably no HOF, and he'd be a forgotten figure today.

I've beat this topic into the ground the past 3 years, it's so.

Yes I saw Russell play. Been an NBA fan since '62.

I hated Russell I was a Wilt fan. Russell was in Wilt's head. Russell couldn't stop Wilt from rebounding (I believe Wilt is the best rebounder ever), but Wilt couldn't put up the points he did against the rest of the league vs. Russell.

Russell was smart, and like a cat on defense. As much as I hated him, I found his defensive skills remarkable.

And Russell was 7-1 vs. Wilt in the playoffs.

Also don't know if Celts win with Wilt.

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 01:52 PM
Wade's TS percentage in the playoffs was 490 and Bosh didn't score at all in multiple games. Including game seven of the NBA finals.

Yes, this is true, and I give him a lot of credit for winning a ring. But to me he was already the best doing the impossible when he was on Cleveland and brought that team to the finals.

IKnowHoops
09-13-2013, 02:00 PM
You need to look at the amount of years those guys played with him and what stage of their career they were in. For instance Sampson's last two years were garbage, but due to his name he made the AS team. Hakeem was past his prime when CB showed up, same with Pippen. Drexler was past his prime when he had his short stint there. Nope, the best long term player he had to play with was Thorpe.



Fitch was good (but generally disliked by most players), the others were crap.



Some. No. I lean on my experience as a player and coach and long term fan to be able to understand players faster and better than most. I also used to go to a lot of games - since about 2007 I haven't been able to make many. I get about 15x more from being in the stands than watching on TV, the camera follows the game which is only a fraction of where the game is. Coaches and players on the bench from the floor, reactions of players off camera. Yeah I believe I am well qualified to speak about both players.



OK, do realize I was speed typing when I issued that long line of posts. CBS, and cable showed a lot of games from all over, in particular marquee Center match-ups back then.



No I said or meant to say he had a good enough outside shot so he couldn't just be covered like a low post scorer. If you don't remember how many 14-17 foot jumpers he took and hit, then I don't know what to day.



Almost all of DRob's offense was face up and 8 feet or farther out, unless he had a lay-up or Mikan shot.



Of course. Over the past few years that I've poster on the NBA Forum, I've had DRob as 5th or 6th best Center. Is that an insult somehow? The past two years it's been mostly 5th. Since he had no real low post game his face up offense would HAVE to be excellent to be rated that high, right?



Dur to the weakness of the bigs on Houston and the team overall he was often double teamed. DRob had a better team and was double teamed well less often.



Yeah my opinion going back to Russell is that as an overall defender inside and outside at the 5, than in his prime he was the best defender of all time. DRob was probably even 14' from the basket and out, which is excellent, but inside of that he was not a match for Hakeem.

DRob played for better teams than Hakeem, awards are often popularity contests and/or awards for players on winning teams. Means nothing. Being a 4/5 on a D1 college team and spending 14 years as a coach and almost 50 as a fan gives me a position that I am quite clear about - Hakeem's D > DRob. As a big DRob's D is probably no worse than 7th best all time, but the difference between 7th and 14th is much less than 1st and 7th for instance.

Can you prove this?

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 02:56 PM
Robinson is top 20 player of all-time. If he outside your top 30...you're criminally underrating him.

Hey Longhornfan1234,
Exactly.

One of my biggest questions about DRob (and many others, including Wilt):
Did he really NOT have enough "Killer Instinct"? Amongst the best team-sports players and best athletes in the world, IS Killer Instinct different enough that one can really nail down how much of it each guy had???

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 02:58 PM
You need to look at the amount of years those guys played with him and what stage of their career they were in. For instance Sampson's last two years were garbage, but due to his name he made the AS team. Hakeem was past his prime when CB showed up, same with Pippen. Drexler was past his prime when he had his short stint there. Nope, the best long term player he had to play with was Thorpe.



Fitch was good (but generally disliked by most players), the others were crap.



Some. No. I lean on my experience as a player and coach and long term fan to be able to understand players faster and better than most. I also used to go to a lot of games - since about 2007 I haven't been able to make many. I get about 15x more from being in the stands than watching on TV, the camera follows the game which is only a fraction of where the game is. Coaches and players on the bench from the floor, reactions of players off camera. Yeah I believe I am well qualified to speak about both players.



OK, do realize I was speed typing when I issued that long line of posts. CBS, and cable showed a lot of games from all over, in particular marquee Center match-ups back then.



No I said or meant to say he had a good enough outside shot so he couldn't just be covered like a low post scorer. If you don't remember how many 14-17 foot jumpers he took and hit, then I don't know what to day.



Almost all of DRob's offense was face up and 8 feet or farther out, unless he had a lay-up or Mikan shot.



Of course. Over the past few years that I've poster on the NBA Forum, I've had DRob as 5th or 6th best Center. Is that an insult somehow? The past two years it's been mostly 5th. Since he had no real low post game his face up offense would HAVE to be excellent to be rated that high, right?



Dur to the weakness of the bigs on Houston and the team overall he was often double teamed. DRob had a better team and was double teamed well less often.



Yeah my opinion going back to Russell is that as an overall defender inside and outside at the 5, than in his prime he was the best defender of all time. DRob was probably even 14' from the basket and out, which is excellent, but inside of that he was not a match for Hakeem.

DRob played for better teams than Hakeem, awards are often popularity contests and/or awards for players on winning teams. Means nothing. Being a 4/5 on a D1 college team and spending 14 years as a coach and almost 50 as a fan gives me a position that I am quite clear about - Hakeem's D > DRob. As a big DRob's D is probably no worse than 7th best all time, but the difference between 7th and 14th is much less than 1st and 7th for instance.

Hey bagwell,
I don't 100% agree with everything you say here; but all I can say about this, your, post is:
I've never been more STUNNED by a sports comment than by this post.
Wow.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 02:59 PM
This was an outstanding post , well done !

Hey savvy1803,
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 03:00 PM
Hey all,
A general comment about this thread:
What amazing quality of thought COMBINED with an unusually high-level of mutual respect/tolerance. Makes one extra proud to participate actively here at PSD-NBA.

KingstonHawke
09-13-2013, 03:14 PM
Is he even a top 8 center all time?

Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem, Ewing, Russell... and then Robinson... maybe.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 03:21 PM
Hey all,
It simply amazes me (though NO criticism of anybody here; if you don't know stuff because it was both before your time AND no one "in the know" has fulfilled their duty/responsibility to keep true facts from the past alive in the present). but

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TWO NOT-DIRECTLY BALL-PLAYING THINGS ABOUT WILT:

1) Wilt might have well broken up / prevented more fights that all other NBA players combined in history. If you can at least temporarily accept this statement as possibly true; naturally you'd want to ask: "How/why?"

Wilt was the epitome of everything that the greatest male athlete of the 1900s could have/be in physical attributes. He was incredibly strong, and incredible stamina, was incredibly fast; but I want to focus on the strength PLUS his quickness. Fast is NOT the same thing as QUICK. Fast means over the length of a basketball court, at 100 meters, over 400 meters. QUICK is near-instantaneous speed; vertical/horizontal leap (which depends on explosiveness - fast twitch muscle as opposed to slow-twitch muscle).

When you combine: world-record strength and extreme quickness (plus immense size) in one man, you have yourself a 100% LETHAL WEAPON. Wilt lived his life KNOWING that anybody he touched in anger was dead meat - there would be NO HOSPITALIZATION; only the morgue.

Faced with that immense danger/responsibility, Wilt had the strength of character to take a life-long private oath to avoid all violence - afterall he was a giant man among boys.

The stories of him breaking up fights are legendary. He more than once simultaneously (but gently) lifted up two 230+ pound players, into the air, with arms extended, and said, "There will be none of that here".

I know of one instance where he did get a little riled. And you have to remember, he was Shaq before Shaq; he lived his entire basketball career with a separate set of rules: only he was allowed to be constantly and physically-hard fouled; and NOT have those fouls called, and not have those people ejected (for which, in ALL other cases they would have been). And he NEVER complained about it. He truly was a Gentle Giant.

So back to that one instance. Some other center (whose name escapes me at the moment); probably the 2nd biggest, strongest guy in the league was just getting "abused" by Wilt; he could doing ZERO to even slow Wilt. So he pulled Wilt's shorts down. Wilt reacted too quickly even for Wilt's almost infinite patience and kindness, barely flicked his wrist out ...

AND SENT THAT MONSTER-SIZED GUY FLYING!! The ref came RUNNING over and told that player to stay on the ground, because he was gonna be dead if he didn't. So he didn't get up; and he lived another day (to be endlessly dominated by Wilt).

WILT'S PEACE-MAKING / PEACE KEEPING WAS LEGENDARY = #1 ALL-TIME NBA PEACE GOAT
How much is that worth; when we take into consideration an individual player's historic influence on the game???
-----
WILT SINGLE-HANDEDLY INTEGRATED ENTIRE CITIES AND THEN AN ENTIRE US REGION!
Wilt made it part of his personal life to go to different places constantly, for example, restaurants. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY integrated entire cities this way. Who was going to try to tell him to his fact that "******s Aren't Allowed"???

He never stopped, he single-handedly integrated the entire South; the, by far (though not, by a long-shot unique) most racist part of the country. (I know I "lived" the grossness of the "3 Bathroom System"; I saw personally people getting beat to a pulp out back behind businesses and restaurants.)

WILT'S SMASHING OF THE "RACE BARRIER" = #1 ALL-TIME NBA SOCIAL-PROGRESS FACILITATOR!
People talk about such historic figures as Jackie Robinson, George Mikan and others for sports or society-wide contributions. Wilt has to be in the All-Time Top 3 (if not #1 GOAT) for All-Sports Combined. The guts of the man; the influence of the man; the GRACE of the man!!!

And then there were his "immortal" almost unlimited contributions to woman-kind, hehe. But that's a discussion for some other time and place.

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2013, 05:42 PM
Hey all,
It simply amazes me (though NO criticism of anybody here; if you don't know stuff because it was both before your time AND no one "in the know" has fulfilled their duty/responsibility to keep true facts from the past alive in the present). but

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TWO NOT-DIRECTLY BALL-PLAYING THINGS ABOUT WILT:

1) Wilt might have well broken up / prevented more fights that all other NBA players combined in history. If you can at least temporarily accept this statement as possibly true; naturally you'd want to ask: "How/why?"

Wilt was the epitome of everything that the greatest male athlete of the 1900s could have/be in physical attributes. He was incredibly strong, and incredible stamina, was incredibly fast; but I want to focus on the strength PLUS his quickness. Fast is NOT the same thing as QUICK. Fast means over the length of a basketball court, at 100 meters, over 400 meters. QUICK is near-instantaneous speed; vertical/horizontal leap (which depends on explosiveness - fast twitch muscle as opposed to slow-twitch muscle).

When you combine: world-record strength and extreme quickness (plus immense size) in one man, you have yourself a 100% LETHAL WEAPON. Wilt lived his life KNOWING that anybody he touched in anger was dead meat - there would be NO HOSPITALIZATION; only the morgue.

Faced with that immense danger/responsibility, Wilt had the strength of character to take a life-long private oath to avoid all violence - afterall he was a giant man among boys.

The stories of him breaking up fights are legendary. He more than once simultaneously (but gently) lifted up two 230+ pound players, into the air, with arms extended, and said, "There will be none of that here".

I know of one instance where he did get a little riled. And you have to remember, he was Shaq before Shaq; he lived his entire basketball career with a separate set of rules: only he was allowed to be constantly and physically-hard fouled; and NOT have those fouls called, and not have those people ejected (for which, in ALL other cases they would have been). And he NEVER complained about it. He truly was a Gentle Giant.

So back to that one instance. Some other center (whose name escapes me at the moment); probably the 2nd biggest, strongest guy in the league was just getting "abused" by Wilt; he could doing ZERO to even slow Wilt. So he pulled Wilt's shorts down. Wilt reacted too quickly even for Wilt's almost infinite patience and kindness, barely flicked his wrist out ...

AND SENT THAT MONSTER-SIZED GUY FLYING!! The ref came RUNNING over and told that player to stay on the ground, because he was gonna be dead if he didn't. So he didn't get up; and he lived another day (to be endlessly dominated by Wilt).

WILT'S PEACE-MAKING / PEACE KEEPING WAS LEGENDARY = #1 ALL-TIME NBA PEACE GOAT
How much is that worth; when we take into consideration an individual player's historic influence on the game???
-----
WILT SINGLE-HANDEDLY INTEGRATED ENTIRE CITIES AND THEN AN ENTIRE US REGION!
Wilt made it part of his personal life to go to different places constantly, for example, restaurants. He SINGLE-HANDEDLY integrated entire cities this way. Who was going to try to tell him to his fact that "******s Aren't Allowed"???

He never stopped, he single-handedly integrated the entire South; the, by far (though not, by a long-shot unique) most racist part of the country. (I know I "lived" the grossness of the "3 Bathroom System"; I saw personally people getting beat to a pulp out back behind businesses and restaurants.)

WILT'S SMASHING OF THE "RACE BARRIER" = #1 ALL-TIME NBA SOCIAL-PROGRESS FACILITATOR!
People talk about such historic figures as Jackie Robinson, George Mikan and others for sports or society-wide contributions. Wilt has to be in the All-Time Top 3 (if not #1 GOAT) for All-Sports Combined. The guts of the man; the influence of the man; the GRACE of the man!!!

And then there were his "immortal" almost unlimited contributions to woman-kind, hehe. But that's a discussion for some other time and place.

Your statement (which is not totally true) is the reason that Wilt is not considered, hands down, the best player ever.

He didn't have heart or passion for the game. By letting himself be abused and not retaliating, he allowed his opponents to take advantage of him.

Some opponents would put their hand directly over the basket, knowing that Wilt wouldn't dunk because he might rip off their hand.

They wouldn't have tried that with Russell, or Shaq, for that matter.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 06:00 PM
Your statement (which is not totally true) is the reason that Wilt is not considered, hands down, the best player ever.

He didn't have heart or passion for the game. By letting himself be abused and not retaliating, he allowed his opponents to take advantage of him.

Some opponents would put their hand directly over the basket, knowing that Wilt wouldn't dunk because he might rip off their hand.

They wouldn't have tried that with Russell, or Shaq, for that matter.

Hey MightyHumph,
I am SO glad you bring this up.
There is ANOTHER way to look at greatness than a super-highly concentrated focus on Chips.

In that, alternate, minority, world-view (which I live by; not insisting it's superior but it sure works for me); Wilt was GOAT for how he fit within "his" world. He lived "better to be friends with dignity; than lord it over others and/or "anything to win" mentality.

Let's keep in mind too the era he "operated" in and the "thinking" that drove people back then (to the extent that it differed from the much much more intense focus "on winning"; and that finishing 2nd means somehow that you are a loser). We are nowadays so used to this; that that way of thinking, imo, utterly dominates (in a mostly bad way) our thinking about "winning and losing" winners and losers.

The NBA was pretty much "brand-new"; especially as an integrated league. It was NOT a major sport; there was no guarantee it would even survive. A whole series of pro and semi-pro-leagues had risen up and shortly thereafter gone out of business in the decades before that.

So it was "establishing" its own culture on the fly, so to speak. How much of its future very existence depended on the sportsmanship/camaraderie pervading the league back in those days? And imagine, if such an utterly dominant (and Black) man was NOT the epitome of graciousness and peace? Might he and his teams squeezed out a few victories instead of close game, 7th-game and series defeats? For sure. Would the very NBA have survived it and flourished as it eventually did? Maybe not.

I don't know if anybody has ever been a better personal success than he was.

Something to think about.

Just a great question.

Would he be considered greater had he (more ruthlessly?) pursued championships? In our culture, undoubtedly.
Would he have been a better, greater man if he had? No way.


I am definitely, here in this particular post, NOT intending to insist on anything, any particular point of view. I am humbly asking the very question you provoked in me. Sometime after his pro-basketball playing career was over I "met" Wilt by accident at the San Diego Sports Arena (we were both taking in a game). He was exactly the same, dignified, non-arrogant, even anti-arrogant, gracious, kind, gentle, considerate, deeply-thinking, deeply-appreciative of others and of his "luck/place" in the scheme of things as he had always been. He DID become what he had always practiced. A true giant of a human being; an amazing example for all of us.

FlashBolt
09-13-2013, 06:07 PM
Hey MightyHumph,
I am SO glad you bring this up.
There is ANOTHER way to look at greatness than a super-highly concentrated focus on Chips.

In that, alternate, minority, world-view (which I live by; not insisting it's superior but it sure works for me); Wilt was GOAT for how he fit within "his" world. He lived "better to be friends with dignity; than lord it over others and/or "anything to win" mentality.

Let's keep in mind too the era he "operated" in and the "thinking" that drove people back then (to the extent that it differed from the much much more intense focus "on winning"; and that finishing 2nd means somehow that you are a loser). We are nowadays so used to this; that that way of thinking, imo, utterly dominates (in a mostly bad way) our thinking about "winning and losing" winners and losers.

The NBA was pretty much "brand-new"; especially as an integrated league. It was NOT a major sport; there was no guarantee it would even survive. A whole series of pro and semi-pro-leagues had risen up and shortly thereafter gone out of business in the decades before that.

So it was "establishing" its own culture on the fly, so to speak. How much of its future very existence depended on the sportsmanship/camaraderie pervading the league back in those days? And imagine, if such an utterly dominant (and Black) man was NOT the epitome of graciousness and peace? Might he and his teams squeezed out a few victories instead of close game, 7th-game and series defeats? For sure. Would the very NBA have survived it and flourished as it eventually did? Maybe not.

I don't know if anybody has ever been a better personal success than he was.

Something to think about.

Just a great question.

Would he be considered greater had he (more ruthlessly?) pursued championships? In our culture, undoubtedly.
Would he have been a better, greater man if he had? No way.


I am definitely, here in this particular post, NOT intending to insist on anything, any particular point of view. I am humbly asking the very question you provoked in me. Sometime after his pro-basketball playing career was over I "met" Wilt by accident at the San Diego Sports Arena (we were both taking in a game). He was exactly the same, dignified, non-arrogant, even anti-arrogant, gracious, kind, gentle, considerate, deeply-thinking, deeply-appreciative of others and of his "luck/place" in the scheme of things as he had always been. He DID become what he had always practiced. A true giant of a human being; an amazing example for all of us.

Why writer an essay? This isn't a philosophy course about basketball.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 06:20 PM
Why writer an essay? This isn't a philosophy course about basketball.

Hey FlashBolt,
Seriously and as friendily as possible I ask you:
Why not write an essay ON a sports forum where we're one and all devotees of "poetry-in-motion" on the court?
Do you truly believe that basketball has no philosophical aspects to it?
Is the discussion of "how important is winning; and at what cost"? unworthy of even being raised?

You might be right; but then again, do you think anybody would get "hurt" by someone getting a little philosophical about it?

I probably just walked thru the wrong door on my way to that Philosophy Course.
Sorry,
Pablo

ClearSoulForce
09-13-2013, 06:21 PM
What I noticed was Dirk having the highest 2 seasons for a PF.

But Dirk isn't an NBA playe according to this site. 25/10 on great shooting percentages from the floor for his postseason career, 11 all stars, 12 all nba teams, MVP, FInals MVP and ring, 8 of the top 100 performances in elimination games all time, 2nd highest PPG average in elimination games all time...

The guy is terrible. Not an NBA player.

Pablonovi
09-13-2013, 06:30 PM
But Dirk isn't an NBA playe according to this site. 25/10 on great shooting percentages from the floor for his postseason career, 11 all stars, 12 all nba teams, MVP, FInals MVP and ring, 8 of the top 100 performances in elimination games all time, 2nd highest PPG average in elimination games all time...

The guy is terrible. Not an NBA player.

Hey ClearSoulForce,
I have NOT run across one single post by one single poster here on PSD-NBA in my (admittedly very short) posting "career" that, in any way, shape or form, denigrates Dick's career; much less sum him up as 'terrible" and or "Not an NBA player".

Given that, it makes one wonder (me at least) why you would take such a dramatically strong, "sarcastic" (embittered?) tone.

LOOTERX9
09-13-2013, 06:44 PM
LOL at this thread.. David Robinson top 8 player = HELL NAHHHH!!!

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2013, 07:00 PM
Hey MightyHumph,
I am SO glad you bring this up.
There is ANOTHER way to look at greatness than a super-highly concentrated focus on Chips.

In that, alternate, minority, world-view (which I live by; not insisting it's superior but it sure works for me); Wilt was GOAT for how he fit within "his" world. He lived "better to be friends with dignity; than lord it over others and/or "anything to win" mentality.

Let's keep in mind too the era he "operated" in and the "thinking" that drove people back then (to the extent that it differed from the much much more intense focus "on winning"; and that finishing 2nd means somehow that you are a loser). We are nowadays so used to this; that that way of thinking, imo, utterly dominates (in a mostly bad way) our thinking about "winning and losing" winners and losers.

The NBA was pretty much "brand-new"; especially as an integrated league. It was NOT a major sport; there was no guarantee it would even survive. A whole series of pro and semi-pro-leagues had risen up and shortly thereafter gone out of business in the decades before that.

So it was "establishing" its own culture on the fly, so to speak. How much of its future very existence depended on the sportsmanship/camaraderie pervading the league back in those days? And imagine, if such an utterly dominant (and Black) man was NOT the epitome of graciousness and peace? Might he and his teams squeezed out a few victories instead of close game, 7th-game and series defeats? For sure. Would the very NBA have survived it and flourished as it eventually did? Maybe not.

I don't know if anybody has ever been a better personal success than he was.

Something to think about.

Just a great question.

Would he be considered greater had he (more ruthlessly?) pursued championships? In our culture, undoubtedly.
Would he have been a better, greater man if he had? No way.


I am definitely, here in this particular post, NOT intending to insist on anything, any particular point of view. I am humbly asking the very question you provoked in me. Sometime after his pro-basketball playing career was over I "met" Wilt by accident at the San Diego Sports Arena (we were both taking in a game). He was exactly the same, dignified, non-arrogant, even anti-arrogant, gracious, kind, gentle, considerate, deeply-thinking, deeply-appreciative of others and of his "luck/place" in the scheme of things as he had always been. He DID become what he had always practiced. A true giant of a human being; an amazing example for all of us.

You are incredibly ignorant and also spew albatross waste.

Russell was black also, I believe.

Wilt did become what he always practiced. Not sure that was a giant of a human being. In fact I'm relatively sure was almost the opposite of that.

And he was an amazing example for all the 'I don't care' losers out there, of which you seem to be one of.

bagwell368
09-13-2013, 10:43 PM
But Dirk isn't an NBA playe according to this site. 25/10 on great shooting percentages from the floor for his postseason career, 11 all stars, 12 all nba teams, MVP, FInals MVP and ring, 8 of the top 100 performances in elimination games all time, 2nd highest PPG average in elimination games all time...

The guy is terrible. Not an NBA player.

Just because his fans and people that understand/like/appreciate offense more than defense believe he fits at #2, and I think he fits at #5 is no reason to fell sorry for yourself...

FlashBolt
09-13-2013, 10:59 PM
Hey FlashBolt,
Seriously and as friendily as possible I ask you:
Why not write an essay ON a sports forum where we're one and all devotees of "poetry-in-motion" on the court?
Do you truly believe that basketball has no philosophical aspects to it?
Is the discussion of "how important is winning; and at what cost"? unworthy of even being raised?

You might be right; but then again, do you think anybody would get "hurt" by someone getting a little philosophical about it?

I probably just walked thru the wrong door on my way to that Philosophy Course.
Sorry,
Pablo

There are philosophical aspects incorporated into every element of life. However, your essay tends to be a whole bunch of nothing. I read all of it and still can't understand your point of view regarding the question.

bagwell368
09-13-2013, 11:10 PM
Bill had his eye on the prize since he was in college or maybe before. In the NBA when Wilt showed up, it was clear that Bill didn't have Wilt's gifts. He did everything he could every day to beat Wilt and everyone else. In that way he's practically without peer.

Wilt was majestically talented, but he was very self conscience, not at all sure what parts of the game he should focus on, and what if anything in his life outside of hoops he should give up to get better.

Unknown to all but those two, Wilt's mother, and whomever cooked/served Bill's meals, while Bill was in Boston and Wilt in Philly they each hosted the traveling player the night before the game. Bill used this time to observe and figure out Wilt, and use what he found against him in games. After Bill retired, he said so, and Wilt was quite unhappy because he was just being nice.

Today too many, Bill seems like the bad guy, and Wilt was just nice. But back then when player salaries were very small, the player/fan alliegence was so strong that those that started to watch after 1990 can't understand it. What with the increase in PC, and that disgusting kiss Magic dished out, guys from back then wouldn't recognize the league now.

Before I got to old/wise to get amped up, I used to hate Laimbeer, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, Jeff Ruland, and other chippy/dirty players. In an unbroken line from Bill through Bird and then again with KG, those guys aren't about "nice" and "shaking hands" they are about winning, and piling dirt on your opponents if possible.

Want to know who the best Center of all time is? Stick Bill's essence in Wilt and that's him, but since we can't, I'll stick with Hakeem.

bearadonisdna
09-13-2013, 11:30 PM
I think David Robinson is better than shaq.

FlashBolt
09-13-2013, 11:41 PM
I think David Robinson is better than shaq.

In what?

TheMightyHumph
09-13-2013, 11:50 PM
In what?

A submarine

IKnowHoops
09-14-2013, 01:40 AM
"All time Peace GOAT" Thats funny

IKnowHoops
09-14-2013, 01:44 AM
Because DRob's teams won more games than Hakeems, had better seeding, and yet somehow Hakeem won two titles as the main cog and DRob did not.

We are arguing over your over reliance as Win Shares as a truth teller w/o making adjustments for players on teams with fairly different records. There are MORE Win Shares on teams with more WINS by DEFINITION. Hence a player with a team that wins 45 games vs a player that averages 55 wins and plays the same amount of time and is equal in every way measurable will have more win shares. Well there you go, win shares are a great thing, but, has definite limits. Two guys on the same team, same minutes and same shift? Now that's going to be pretty informative.

The only reason why Drob's teams were better and won more games is because David was a more productive player than Hakeem. Thats not debatable.

bearadonisdna
09-14-2013, 04:42 AM
In what?

I never gave it much thought until this thread but i think just d.robinson may be a little underrated.

todu82
09-14-2013, 09:28 AM
Always liked Robinson. Guy was such a good player but he's not a top 8 player of all time. Top 25? Yes but not Top 8.

Pablonovi
09-14-2013, 11:51 AM
There are philosophical aspects incorporated into every element of life. However, your essay tends to be a whole bunch of nothing. I read all of it and still can't understand your point of view regarding the question.

Hey FlashBolt,
Near the top of that "essay" (it really was that long) I wrote:
"There is ANOTHER way to look at greatness than a super-highly concentrated focus on Chips."
In other words, in one world-view "winning is everything; and even finishing second is 'losing' ").

I THOUGHT that that was what I was addressing. I THINK that while Wilt DID give his all to win; his orientation towards "there is only one winner, everybody else is a loser"; was enough different compared to present-day attitudes that it was worth addressing; worth asking if perhaps he was NOT wrong.

But I have just re-read it and it seems to me that, if not you in particular, most people should be able to pick up what my "... point of view regarding the question" was/is.

On the other hand, it may not have been clear/concise enough. I am NOT saying I did a great job of doing that. IF I did not, sorry, I screwed that one up.

btw, do you subscribe to what is probably the prevailing philosophy/attitude "one winner, all else = losers"?

IKnowHoops
09-14-2013, 03:33 PM
Its funny to here how Olajuwon had a worse team around him than David Robinson. When I hear this I know that the person saying this is a little misinformed.
The year Clyde Drexler came to Houston he was...
Age 32 years old
PER 22.1 (his best ever was 24.1)
TS% .613 (best of his career previous best was .577)
ORTG 119 (best of his career)
PTs 21.4 per game

During the season he was probably a tad better that D wade was last year when he actually played. During the playoffs he was way better than what D wade was. Cassell and Jet were probably better than Noris and Rio. Bosh wasn't even there for the playoffs. But at the end of the day, Hakeems team was right there with the starting cast of Miami without Bron. Performance wise they are absolutely on par, and in the playoffs hakeems team did way more than Brons team. And we are here debating if Hakeems team was better than the Admiral's team. hahahahahaha laughable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IKnowHoops
09-14-2013, 03:45 PM
Clyde drexler lead Houston in win shares during the playoffs. Common man. Yeah no help at all. Do you honestly think another player on SA lead the team in Win shares over Drob. Delusion can get to anyone no matter how many games you have watched. I was a huge David Fan, I watched every game I could when he was on tv and prob 95% of his playoff games. I know a lot about the Spurs team compared to the Houston team. NO way ever have I felt that Houston's players were worse than Spurs players.

IKnowHoops
09-14-2013, 04:05 PM
Because DRob's teams won more games than Hakeems, had better seeding, and yet somehow Hakeem won two titles as the main cog and DRob did not.

We are arguing over your over reliance as Win Shares as a truth teller w/o making adjustments for players on teams with fairly different records. There are MORE Win Shares on teams with more WINS by DEFINITION. Hence a player with a team that wins 45 games vs a player that averages 55 wins and plays the same amount of time and is equal in every way measurable will have more win shares. Well there you go, win shares are a great thing, but, has definite limits. Two guys on the same team, same minutes and same shift? Now that's going to be pretty informative.

Dude you are just flat out wrong her. In the 94-95 playoffs, Hakeem won. So Houston won more games than the spurs did in the playoffs that year. Still...

Drob averaged .176 winshares/48
Clyde averaged .167 winshares/48
Dream averaged .143 winshares/48

Please explain this while being accurate in your explanation which would be different from your last explanation of David winning more games in the playoffs.

If win shares had as much to do with the team winning as you profess it does, and if Dream is actually better than Drob, then in this situation he should have a better win shares pct. The fact that he is above neither David nor Clyde, is telling to the help he had, and the help David didn't have.

bagwell368
09-15-2013, 05:45 AM
The only reason why Drob's teams were better and won more games is because David was a more productive player than Hakeem. Thats not debatable.

SAS was a better team, with better overall players excluding the two players in question, that's what's not debatable.

bagwell368
09-15-2013, 05:48 AM
Its funny to here how Olajuwon had a worse team around him than David Robinson. When I hear this I know that the person saying this is a little misinformed.
The year Clyde Drexler came to Houston he was...
Age 32 years old
PER 22.1 (his best ever was 24.1)
TS% .613 (best of his career previous best was .577)
ORTG 119 (best of his career)
PTs 21.4 per game

During the season he was probably a tad better that D wade was last year when he actually played. During the playoffs he was way better than what D wade was. Cassell and Jet were probably better than Noris and Rio. Bosh wasn't even there for the playoffs. But at the end of the day, Hakeems team was right there with the starting cast of Miami without Bron. Performance wise they are absolutely on par, and in the playoffs hakeems team did way more than Brons team. And we are here debating if Hakeems team was better than the Admiral's team. hahahahahaha laughable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even when you cherry pick the one single year of the best player Hakeem played with, you ignore all the other players he played with who as a group including Drexler was inferior to what DRob had around him. Look it up, I did last year or the year before and blew your theory here to pieces. When I have the time I'll find it and repost.

IKnowHoops
09-15-2013, 07:47 AM
Even when you cherry pick the one single year of the best player Hakeem played with, you ignore all the other players he played with who as a group including Drexler was inferior to what DRob had around him. Look it up, I did last year or the year before and blew your theory here to pieces. When I have the time I'll find it and repost.

BS you did. Please. I just looked it up and your off on this one big time bro. Your dead wrong. And you could not explain why David had more win shares yet his team had less wins. Blew your theory to crap easily.

bagwell368
09-15-2013, 10:30 PM
BS you did. Please. I just looked it up and your off on this one big time bro. Your dead wrong. And you could not explain why David had more win shares yet his team had less wins. Blew your theory to crap easily.

Don't get excited, I posted about the teams records and seeding, here is an extended set of stats.

Hakeem & DRob's top 10 years in WS listed hierarchically:

year, win shares, seed, playoff rounds won, team wins:


Hakeem Robinson

1992-93* 15.8 - 2 - 1 - 55 | 1993-94* - 4 - 0 - 20.0 - 55
1993-94* 14.3 - 2 - 4 - 58 | 1995-96* - 2 - 1 - 18.3 - 59
1988-89* 12.4 - 5 - 0 - 45 | 1994-95* - 1 - 2 - 17.5 - 62
1989-90* 11.2 - 8 - 0 - 41 | 1990-91* - 2 - 0 - 17.0 - 55
1986-87* 10.9 - 6 - 1 - 42 | 1989-90* - 2 - 1 - 15.1 - 56
1987-88* 10.7 - 6 - 0 - 46 | 1991-92* - 5 - 0 - 13.9 - 47
1994-95* 10.7 - 6 - 4 - 47 | 1997-98* - 5 - 1 - 13.8 - 56
1984-85* 10.2 - 3 - 0 - 48 | 1992-93* - 5 - 1 - 13.2 - 49
1991-92* 09.8 - 9 - N - 42 | 1999-00* - 4 - 0 - 12.7 - 53
1995-96* 09.7 - 5 - 1 - 48 | 2000-01* - 1 - 2 - 12.1 - 58
115.7 52 11 472 | 31 8 156.6 550

So, let's parse the numbers:

Houston won only 86% as many regular season games as SAS 55 > 47.2. So SAS was better. If necessary I'll parse out the 3 best other players on each team in these 10 years on paper, but I've looked at it before, SAS had better players than Houston.

Hakeem is only 73% as good as DRob according to Win Shares. However, when you look at their win shares vs the team win count (the basis for win shares), it's 24.5% for Hakeem and 28.4% for Robinson. One of the pet peeves fans that understand metrics have is that the offensive part of the game is fairly well covered, but that defense isn't. I don't know a single writer or senior fan of the game that thinks Robinson's D was better than Hakeem's.. That goes a long way to explaining why the gray hairs here usually take Hakeem over Robinson, and that explains all if not more of the difference in the "team win adjusted win share" numbers I'm using. Also consider that since Hakeem's teams were weaker, he faced more help/double teams than Robinson, because who else would you focus on?

Another example of Win Shares vs Team Wins I've posted on PSD is Oscar Robinson's best 10 year vs Bill Russell's. Russell has more win shares because his team is better, a lot better, but Oscar earned a much higher percentage of his teams wins, making him more valuable by that stat to his team than Russell to his. So in cases when comparing two players from teams with markedly different records you ought to stop and think about what those numbers really say.

SAS averaged a seeding of 3.1 (only 3 times at 5th, the other 7 in the top 4), much better then Houston's 5.2 (only 3 years in the top 4 seed, 4 years lower than any of the 10 SAS seeds, two at 5th seed... and Houston missed the playoffs once, SAS never did).

But Houston won 11 playoff rounds to 8 for SAS, and wow, they won two titles to zero for the better team, with the better seeding.

Career longevity well favors Hakeem, and of course so does leading his team to two titles (one of them with one of the 3 weakest Finals winning teams in NBA history) from lower seeds. Robinson's career was shorter, his playoff results until TD came along and allowed the ancient 4th banana Robinson to be part of a title - was frankly headed to top 5 all time playoff choke careers.

Go online to other sites, published writers, etc. That's the consensus. I'm not always in agreement with the consensus, but here, they are dead on. And no I'm a fan of neither team, but I am of great players. Hakeem was greater than Robinson. So was Wilt, Shaq, and Jabbar. I don't count TD as a Center, if you do, he goes on the list above Robinson. Robinson was better than Russell and Malone although it's close, and much better than the rest. No slight to Robinson, he's just not better than 5th (or 6th) Center and about 16-19th best player.

bagwell368
09-16-2013, 08:06 AM
Dude you are just flat out wrong her. In the 94-95 playoffs, Hakeem won. So Houston won more games than the spurs did in the playoffs that year. Still...

Hunh? I'm talking career or better yet top 10 years of each players career, not one season. In those 10 years the Rockets won 11 playoff series with only 3 seeds in the top 4, and the Spurs won 8 series with 7 seeds in the top 4. Ugh.


Drob averaged .176 winshares/48
Clyde averaged .167 winshares/48
Dream averaged .143 winshares/48

Please explain this while being accurate in your explanation which would be different from your last explanation of David winning more games in the playoffs.

You don't really get this do you? In the 10 best years of each player, Robinson's teams won 55 games on average, and Hakeem's 47.2. That's what you have as a pool to draw win shares from, and all win share associated stats. Put Hakeem on SAS and DRob on Houston, now give the WS's? They won't be near the same.


If win shares had as much to do with the team winning as you profess it does,

It's a metric, figured out so the total number of player win shares is almost always within 5% of team wins. It was developed with a heuristic iterative technique to do just that. Maybe you ought to go read up on win shares in basketball from the guy that invented it, I did.

Given that, how do you expect a roughly equal player, playing roughly equal number of games and minutes on a team with 47 wins to have as many win shares as a team with 55 wins over a ten year period? Eyewitnesses agree, Hakeem was a better defender or much better defender, but, data and metrics for recording defense are woefully lacking, meaning the best part of Hakeem's game and his chief advantage over Robinson (along with low post moves/play) further distorts his "win shares".


and if Dream is actually better than Drob, then in this situation he should have a better win shares pct.

No, read this post and the one above it.


The fact that he is above neither David nor Clyde, is telling to the help he had, and the help David didn't have.

Again a guy that's on a team for 1.5 years has a different impact than a guy that's on it for 7 of the same 10 years. During the best 10 years (per win shares) of each player, DRob's cast was stronger. Once you realize how badly you've muffed understanding player Win Shares and team wins, you ought to look at those twenty teams and explain how SAS had a lesser team outside of DRob/Hakeem comparisons.

It can do good to think about it, rather than knee jerk an answer that one already has ready to go that hasn't been thought about.

IKnowHoops
09-16-2013, 04:11 PM
Duplicate

IKnowHoops
09-16-2013, 04:21 PM
Duplicate

IKnowHoops
09-16-2013, 04:28 PM
Hunh? I'm talking career or better yet top 10 years of each players career, not one season. In those 10 years the Rockets won 11 playoff series with only 3 seeds in the top 4, and the Spurs won 8 series with 7 seeds in the top 4. Ugh.



You don't really get this do you? In the 10 best years of each player, Robinson's teams won 55 games on average, and Hakeem's 47.2. That's what you have as a pool to draw win shares from, and all win share associated stats. Put Hakeem on SAS and DRob on Houston, now give the WS's? They won't be near the same.



It's a metric, figured out so the total number of player win shares is almost always within 5% of team wins. It was developed with a heuristic iterative technique to do just that. Maybe you ought to go read up on win shares in basketball from the guy that invented it, I did.

Given that, how do you expect a roughly equal player, playing roughly equal number of games and minutes on a team with 47 wins to have as many win shares as a team with 55 wins over a ten year period? Eyewitnesses agree, Hakeem was a better defender or much better defender, but, data and metrics for recording defense are woefully lacking, meaning the best part of Hakeem's game and his chief advantage over Robinson (along with low post moves/play) further distorts his "win shares".



No, read this post and the one above it.



Again a guy that's on a team for 1.5 years has a different impact than a guy that's on it for 7 of the same 10 years. During the best 10 years (per win shares) of each player, DRob's cast was stronger. Once you realize how badly you've muffed understanding player Win Shares and team wins, you ought to look at those twenty teams and explain how SAS had a lesser team outside of DRob/Hakeem comparisons.

It can do good to think about it, rather than knee jerk an answer that one already has ready to go that hasn't been thought about.

Year to year things change man. Your sample size needs to be broken down on a year to year basis. Again this is laughable. Not talking about a specific year? What, that makes no sense. So your theory doesn't hold in a sample size as small as a year? Your just trying to win an argument and ignoring facts. You bring up Hakeem has rings and David doesn't. Then you say David had better teams. But when we look at the specific year in whic Hakeem won, its obvious he had a better team in those two years. So do you understand why I am saying you are just trying to win an argument. Your trying to use a ten year span as an argument stating Hakeem had worse teams and more rings but during the two years he won rings, Hakeems teams were clearly better. Explain to me why Hakeems win shares are lower than Davids and Drexlers in the playoffs during there second championship, when Hakeems team won more games. Can you do that? You either can explain it or you can't. If you can't just stop with your bs. Don't try to give me a ten year period, tell me about Hakeem winning rings, and not David, and then not focus on the specific stats of those two years. Again, your argument is bs and bush league. Really who are you trying to fool with this dude?

SLY WILLIAMS
09-16-2013, 04:50 PM
Why don't you guys just say they were both great players and very close career wise so that it just comes down to personal opinion. Neither of you is going to convince the other. :)

IKnowHoops
09-16-2013, 05:30 PM
Why don't you guys just say they were both great players and very close career wise so that it just comes down to personal opinion. Neither of you is going to convince the other. :)

I 100% agree with this statement. End Thread

TheMightyHumph
09-16-2013, 08:56 PM
Why don't you guys just say they were both great players and very close career wise so that it just comes down to personal opinion. Neither of you is going to convince the other. :)

I'd put Moses right there with the Admiral and Hakeem

bagwell368
09-16-2013, 10:09 PM
Year to year things change man. Your sample size needs to be broken down on a year to year basis. Again this is laughable.

We're talking about who is better. You want to break it down year by year, be my guest. The 10 best years hierarchical gives just about anything anyone could want. I do break down '94 adn '95 playoffs and '95 Hakeems season below.


Not talking about a specific year? What, that makes no sense.

OK, let's talk about the 7 out of 10 years DRob's team was in the top 4 seeds and won 11 series in all. If I just dig up one season at a time the impact of that massive failure of SAS during Robinson's prime 10 years is going to be muted by looking at it one year at a time. I mean, seriously, it's an epic failure.


So your theory doesn't hold in a sample size as small as a year?

That's rubbish, as I show below. You want to talk about years, then take each of my pairs of 10 and compare them, then throw in the other seasons and compare them. But again, the title is DRob is a top 8 player all time, which he isn't.

Getting bogged down year to year? Go ahead, make sure you add in all the teammates win shares and explain your theory again that Houston had a better team overall. Anyone can cherry pick one year and say what about this guy and that guy (you tried something like that with Drexler I recall). I'm talking about looking at every year (WHICH I DID) in their primes, and combine them in a way that an argument that contains averages and accomplishments and summaries can be gleaned from. Just talking 1994 and 1999 isn't going to get near that, is it? Perfect way to derail the argument.


Your just trying to win an argument and ignoring facts.

Laughable. I'm the one bringing up facts and well agreed on opinions, and you are the one arguing to defend a favorite player, and complaining about non existent problems with my posts to avoid having to argue facts - get how that works? I've been at PSD for a long time, and seen that way of trying to wriggle out of a losing argument a few times.


You bring up Hakeem has rings and David doesn't.

Why wouldn't I, you sure would if it was the other way around. Oh yeah I forgot to mention in Robinson's MVP year that Hakeem ate him for breakfast, lunch, and dinner in the playoffs too. Let's not let delicate sensibilities keep us from the truth.


Then you say David had better teams.

You should become familiar with the concept of facts. It's a bald fact that SAS in DR's time was a better regular season than HO's team. Right there in black and white. Not just better players per se, but better coaching and schemes. So again, how is SAS not better than Hou - the seeding sure says they were, the missed playoffs for Houston and none for SAS says the same thing. That's a big part of why Hakeem is better. Worse regular season teams and then wham! Two Championships to a pile of poor outcomes for DRob and co.

But the playoffs says something different. In the key arena of facts, Hakeem won two titles leading his team, and DRob got zero. Care to comment on the gravity of that?


But when we look at the specific year in whic Hakeem won, its obvious he had a better team in those two years.

Well in terms of final results OBVIOUSLY, but in terms of public perception, league perception, broadcaster perception, seeding, and team record Houston was NOBODIES favorite to win those two years heading into the playoffs.


Your trying to use a ten year span as an argument stating Hakeem had worse teams and more rings but during the two years he won rings, Hakeems teams were clearly better.

Not over those 10 years they were not better - where do you get this? Outside of the titles show me how Houston was better, and a chery picked list of famous names does NOT constitute proof - you already tried that.

I've used this 10 year prime vs 10 year prime with the Win Shares and team records argument before, and from what I remember nobody has claimed I was short of data, or trying to win an argument so I came up with some crazy way to do it. My counter is that you don't get how advanced metrics work (or at least don't know how to express your knowledge in any way that be construed as expert level).


Explain to me why Hakeems win shares are lower than Davids and Drexlers in the playoffs during there second championship, when Hakeems team won more games. Can you do that? You either can explain it or you can't. If you can't just stop with your bs. Don't try to give me a ten year period, tell me about Hakeem winning rings, and not David, and then not focus on the specific stats of those two years. Again, your argument is bs and bush league. Really who are you trying to fool with this dude?

I focused on those two years as well as the other 8 in my list. Don't like it, put your own data up, or stop complaining.

1994: Hakeem leads Houston in regular season and playoffs Win Shares (D & O and combined) and WS/48 - and wins the title. DRob has nothing to offer against this result, few do.

1995: Hakeem again led Houston in Win Shares (O & D and combined). In the playoffs Hakeem didn't shoot that well, but still led the team in D Win Shares, and was 2nd in WS/48. Houston won with the 6th seed, and was the away team in all 4 series that they won to get the title. DRob has nothing to match this performance either.

Why are Hakeem's WS lower than DRobinson's? I answered that in detail 3 posts ago. A post you have chosen to ignore. Why? Because you have no counter for it, or simply don't get it.

In 1995, Hakeem has less win shares largely because his team won 47 games and Robinson's team won 62 games. The difference in those totals is: Hakeem's team won 75.8% was much as Robinson's. You got that, right? You get that total team win shares and wins are usually very close, so a team with 47 wins is going to have available about 75.8% win shares as a 62 win team has.

Win Shares for the regular season Hakeem had 61.2% as much as Robinson. AH HA! You might be tempted to say, and here is where not understanding Win Shares or how to wield it has bitten you. Robinson played 3074 (81 games) minutes to only 2853 (70 games) minutes for Hakeem.

So if Hakeem played as many minutes as DRob he'd have 11.5 Win Shares - or 24.5% of his teams total. You now get that win shares are relative to team wins AND more often than not - not useful in comparing players head to head unless adjustments are made.

DRob won 28.2% of his teams total. If you had read that post 2 or 3 back you'd have my much agreed on final point that D isn't anywhere near as well collected or understood in advanced metrics. For instance I can't think of any fan that isn't a die hard SAS/Robinson fan that saw both play that would ever EVER say that DRob's D was in the same class as Hakeem, because it wasn't. My claim is that the minor 3.7% difference is more than swallowed up by the shortfall in crediting Hakeem with his D - the only other Center I've ever seen in the same class is Bill Russell. Defensive win shares and DRtg lean far too heavily on team stats - thus are affected by other factors than the players in question.

D Win Shares is so lame for instance that it claims Larry Bird is a better defender than McHale which is a bloody joke - even if you factor in time player. McHale is one of the 3-4 best defensive 4's of all time, and also was a top notch defender of the best 3's in his prime and did fine against 5's as well. Bird was a game, brilliant anticipator, that played his D with one foot in the paint, and ALWAYS got the easier match-up when he and McHale were on the floor together. That's just one example.

So, can you finally discuss this topic and the details such as win shares fairly, or just continue to bring up bogus complaints which hide the threadbare/lost nature of your arguments/point?

bagwell368
09-17-2013, 07:47 AM
I'd put Moses right there with the Admiral and Hakeem

Not quite for me. Here is my list not of best careers, but guys I would most want on a team:

Hakeem (best all around, least vulnerable to bad match-up, D if anything underrated)
Jabbar (Moses really dominated him most of their meetings and more so in playoffs), not killer D except for blocks and D rebounds.
Duncan (maybe trouble with some of the big bigs in the paint), Hakeem in his prime dominated Shaq more than Duncan did.
Shaq (foul shots, and defensive disinterest in 2nd half of career hurt him)
Wilt (higher if he can be motivated), bogus FT%
Robinson (excellent at many things, not low post offense, D bit overrated)
Moses (awesome offensive rebounder, tough guy, not so good at perimeter D)
Russell (the team/Coach-GM was an ideal landing spot, not a dominant scorer, small athletically inferior league that his team dominated, Russell stand alone is much less than Russell the myth. Lousy FT%.

Walton likely would have made that group if healthy, perhaps Sabonis, Ewing also fairly close.

If it's about career value and Championships:

Russell
Jabbar
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Robinson
Moses

Problem with that list is no allowance for league strength. Russell brought to 1995 is just a defensive 5/4 with a very poor shooting touch

TheMightyHumph
09-17-2013, 11:50 AM
Not quite for me. Here is my list not of best careers, but guys I would most want on a team:

Hakeem (best all around, least vulnerable to bad match-up, D if anything underrated)
Jabbar (Moses really dominated him most of their meetings and more so in playoffs), not killer D except for blocks and D rebounds.
Duncan (maybe trouble with some of the big bigs in the paint), Hakeem in his prime dominated Shaq more than Duncan did.
Shaq (foul shots, and defensive disinterest in 2nd half of career hurt him)
Wilt (higher if he can be motivated), bogus FT%
Robinson (excellent at many things, not low post offense, D bit overrated)
Moses (awesome offensive rebounder, tough guy, not so good at perimeter D)
Russell (the team/Coach-GM was an ideal landing spot, not a dominant scorer, small athletically inferior league that his team dominated, Russell stand alone is much less than Russell the myth. Lousy FT%.

Walton likely would have made that group if healthy, perhaps Sabonis, Ewing also fairly close.

If it's about career value and Championships:

Russell
Jabbar
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Robinson
Moses

Problem with that list is no allowance for league strength. Russell brought to 1995 is just a defensive 5/4 with a very poor shooting touch

We'll just disagree on Moses.

And if Russell were coming out of college into the league right now, he'd be a monster, and probably the smartest player in the league.

bagwell368
09-17-2013, 01:01 PM
We'll just disagree on Moses.

And if Russell were coming out of college into the league right now, he'd be a monster, and probably the smartest player in the league.

Russell couldn't shoot or score. He had a 12' wide lane and 3 other 6' 8" or taller players in the NBA before Wilt and what did he do with that? Not much. Later after the 16' lane and everybody having a 7 footer his scoring was even more off the table.

If you say he'd shoot better now due to changes in training, I'd say sure, but he has only a face up game, and he's much more into being a millionaire than team first guy as most these days are. Cannot have it both ways. Also you are assuming that a great deal if not the majority of his mind set did not come from Red, which I wouldn't assume at all.

As for Moses I have him 7th all time. He wasn't a high post center on either side of the ball, and while he caused Jabbar no end of problems inside. He also tortured guys like Parish. If you have him facing a Center that doesn't like to get bodied or mix it up, Moses is an excellent choice. Russell played at a time of much less tolerance for physical play, I can't see Russell being able to contend with Moses in Moses's time.

Obviously he was getting old when he faced Hakeem but Hakeem outplayed him including 3 games with 6 blocks and one with 7 blocks. Can't see Moses dominating Hakeem inside in his prime. Robinson had 3 games with 6 blocks vs an aging Moses as well.

Moses didn't pass much or that well, get steals or blocks at the level of these guys. He had a shorter peak than these guys as well. How gets any higher on the list I can't quite figure out. That 76'er title team from (was in '82) is one of my favorite all underrated teams). I like him a lot, but not higher.

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 01:50 PM
We'll just disagree on Moses.

And if Russell were coming out of college into the league right now, he'd be a monster, and probably the smartest player in the league.

Hey TheMightyHumph,
Your first sentence about Moses: he's one of the all-time most difficult to rank for lots of people for lots of reasons. Possibly because he was the most-unique of all the great centers (and counting the ABA) played 2 decades as such).

Your second sentence about Russell: I, like bagwell, saw tons of Russell. This sentence of yours is probably THE one sentence I have ever seen here on PSD-NBA that I most disagree with. Russell wouldn't even play center now; he would dominate no-one; and THE smartest? Give me a break; he was, by no means at all, un-smart; but there's tons of very-smart NBA players today (especially with the humongous number of coaches each team has, and the super-improved use of stats, advanced and otherwise). Russell had Red Aeurbach; Red was pure genius; I hated him; but I never doubted his genius.

No one will EVER convince me that the huge-gap between him and ALL the other coaches back then, was NOT way bigger than the coach-gap in any other era. Take Red out of the Celtic dynasty = NO dynasty. Take Russell out of the Celtic-All-Star Team; and put him on half the other teams of his time, NO Chips.

bagwell is exactly right: Russell was THE LUCKIEST player in NBA history; and as they say, "It's not even close."

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 01:55 PM
Not quite for me. Here is my list not of best careers, but guys I would most want on a team:

Hakeem (best all around, least vulnerable to bad match-up, D if anything underrated)
Jabbar (Moses really dominated him most of their meetings and more so in playoffs), not killer D except for blocks and D rebounds.
Duncan (maybe trouble with some of the big bigs in the paint), Hakeem in his prime dominated Shaq more than Duncan did.
Shaq (foul shots, and defensive disinterest in 2nd half of career hurt him)
Wilt (higher if he can be motivated), bogus FT%
Robinson (excellent at many things, not low post offense, D bit overrated)
Moses (awesome offensive rebounder, tough guy, not so good at perimeter D)
Russell (the team/Coach-GM was an ideal landing spot, not a dominant scorer, small athletically inferior league that his team dominated, Russell stand alone is much less than Russell the myth. Lousy FT%.

Walton likely would have made that group if healthy, perhaps Sabonis, Ewing also fairly close.

If it's about career value and Championships:

Russell
Jabbar
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Robinson
Moses

Problem with that list is no allowance for league strength. Russell brought to 1995 is just a defensive 5/4 with a very poor shooting touch

Hey bagwell,
In response to this post and your follow-up one focusing on Russell (a couple of posts later) ...
There are a number of points you make (naturally) that I don't agree completely with; a few quite strongly. But when faced with such posts as these two, where you show an historically-advanced and very-complete mastery of the subject matter; my awe of your knowledgeable analysis overwhelms my differences.

Bravo, dude

bagwell368
09-17-2013, 02:54 PM
Hey bagwell,
In response to this post and your follow-up one focusing on Russell (a couple of posts later) ...
There are a number of points you make (naturally) that I don't agree completely with; a few quite strongly. But when faced with such posts as these two, where you show an historically-advanced and very-complete mastery of the subject matter; my awe of your knowledgeable analysis overwhelms my differences.

Bravo, dude

Thanks. I zipped both of those off very quickly, drop some comments in Russell thread and point me to it - and we can discuss. You're the only other bona fide pre 1970 poster on PSD (maybe some are silent about that - or maybe I forgot being so old...), so when I start talking about Mike Newlin or Bob Love almost everyone is who?

Back to Malone (and to everyone) - his ranking more than the others after Wilt era wise depends on the match-up. A mobile/athletic Center that can take him mid range (14-17') or deeper than turn around and shoot over Malone in the low post and hack Malones physical toughness is going to outplay him for sure. Walton dominated Malone in Walton's very short prime, but, Malone hadn't quite become the player he would be later. Malone had Jabbar so bad that his teams couldn't get by Houston in the 1st round playoffs ('81), and then when Malone's 76'ers swept a non too shabby Laker team in the Finals ('83), much/most of that due to Malone > Jabbar (although to be fair Jabbar was starting to decline by '83 - a bit).

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 03:38 PM
Thanks. I zipped both of those off very quickly, drop some comments in Russell thread and point me to it - and we can discuss. You're the only other bona fide pre 1970 poster on PSD (maybe some are silent about that - or maybe I forgot being so old...), so when I start talking about Mike Newlin or Bob Love almost everyone is who?

Back to Malone (and to everyone) - his ranking more than the others after Wilt era wise depends on the match-up. A mobile/athletic Center that can take him mid range (14-17') or deeper than turn around and shoot over Malone in the low post and hack Malones physical toughness is going to outplay him for sure. Walton dominated Malone in Walton's very short prime, but, Malone hadn't quite become the player he would be later. Malone had Jabbar so bad that his teams couldn't get by Houston in the 1st round playoffs ('81), and then when Malone's 76'ers swept a non too shabby Laker team in the Finals ('83), much/most of that due to Malone > Jabbar (although to be fair Jabbar was starting to decline by '83 - a bit).

Hey bagwell,
You're most deserved welcome.

About the "original" Love (not KLove); is that as far back as you can go? hehe. Anybody wanna talk about whether Russell was better than Couse back when they first joined up. I saw them play together; Cousy was busy JUST changing how the game was to be played forever after, with his combo of Maravich-like ball-wizardly, and Magic-like passing. "Houdini of the Hardwood" remains one of the All-Time GOAT nicknames; because it was not only great-sounding; but it was 100% accurate!

About Russell. That's the thing, my differences with you about him aren't worth taking up the time and space to discuss. He was so important for so long and so greatly over-rated for just as long; that our differences, in comparison, are at best, microscopic. And I wouldn't doubt that we'd end up "convincing each other" of those tiny discrepancies to where somebody'd be calling me your dupe!

Of all the things you've been pointing out; none of which I feel like are important enough to raise in the face of your all-sidedness; the biggest one would be about KAJ.

Yes, Moses did dominate him. But then just like they say about NBA games/series and boxing matches, match-ups make the "fight". Everybody, including every great had someone they just couldn't "figure out".

I hesitate to start addressing my case for KAJ being the All-Time #1 GOAT; partially because it is relatively off-topic (is anybody going to try to claim that DRob was greater than KAJ? Didn't think so); and partially, because I have just recently been doing just that, making a case for KAJ as GOAT, but in another thread or two. Given that, I don't have the right, nor the desire to be making that case here.

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 03:45 PM
By the way, everyone,
I keep forgetting what I really feel is most important that I need to say regarding bagwell's posts.

IF YOU WANNA START OFF WITH AN EXCELLENT BASE, for your own analysis/version of NBA history; study bagwell's posts (at least lots of his recent ones, I'm not really familiar enough to say about his pre-July 2013 ones; I wasn't posting then).

Assume that bagwell is definitely IN THE BALLPARK. Then spin away with your own pov (point of view). As he says, I was there, am at least equally old enough as him to have forgotten more than some of you have ever learned (no offense intended, it's just what happens if you're twice as old as most people!).

I humbly give you my word that, for the stuff that was before your time, he is truly, amazingly un-biased and historically fair. In 5+ decades of NBA-rabidity I've consumed a huge volume of writing about the NBA-ABA (even BAA and NBL); and rare is the writer or article that competes with this guy's stuff.

Hey bagwell,
I've seen you get more than a little hot-under-the collar (who doesn't); perhaps a little arrogant. In your case however, I find it more unsightly than for most other people (only because you ARE too good for that, really). I hope (hehe) all this praise doesn't contribute to that.

WadeKobe
09-17-2013, 04:40 PM
Barry Bonds?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/barry-bonds-and-the-2002-world-series/

TheMightyHumph
09-17-2013, 06:53 PM
Hey TheMightyHumph,
Your first sentence about Moses: he's one of the all-time most difficult to rank for lots of people for lots of reasons. Possibly because he was the most-unique of all the great centers (and counting the ABA) played 2 decades as such).

Your second sentence about Russell: I, like bagwell, saw tons of Russell. This sentence of yours is probably THE one sentence I have ever seen here on PSD-NBA that I most disagree with. Russell wouldn't even play center now; he would dominate no-one; and THE smartest? Give me a break; he was, by no means at all, un-smart; but there's tons of very-smart NBA players today (especially with the humongous number of coaches each team has, and the super-improved use of stats, advanced and otherwise). Russell had Red Aeurbach; Red was pure genius; I hated him; but I never doubted his genius.

No one will EVER convince me that the huge-gap between him and ALL the other coaches back then, was NOT way bigger than the coach-gap in any other era. Take Red out of the Celtic dynasty = NO dynasty. Take Russell out of the Celtic-All-Star Team; and put him on half the other teams of his time, NO Chips.

bagwell is exactly right: Russell was THE LUCKIEST player in NBA history; and as they say, "It's not even close."

Russell was lucky to be blessed with smarts, athletic abilities, and an incredible competitive spirit.

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 08:17 PM
Russell was lucky to be blessed with smarts, athletic abilities, and an incredible competitive spirit.

Hey TheMightyHumph,
Yes.

IKnowHoops
09-20-2013, 11:06 PM
Not quite for me. Here is my list not of best careers, but guys I would most want on a team:

Hakeem (best all around, least vulnerable to bad match-up, D if anything underrated)
Jabbar (Moses really dominated him most of their meetings and more so in playoffs), not killer D except for blocks and D rebounds.
Duncan (maybe trouble with some of the big bigs in the paint), Hakeem in his prime dominated Shaq more than Duncan did.
Shaq (foul shots, and defensive disinterest in 2nd half of career hurt him)
Wilt (higher if he can be motivated), bogus FT%
Robinson (excellent at many things, not low post offense, D bit overrated)
Moses (awesome offensive rebounder, tough guy, not so good at perimeter D)
Russell (the team/Coach-GM was an ideal landing spot, not a dominant scorer, small athletically inferior league that his team dominated, Russell stand alone is much less than Russell the myth. Lousy FT%.

Walton likely would have made that group if healthy, perhaps Sabonis, Ewing also fairly close.

If it's about career value and Championships:

Russell
Jabbar
Wilt
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Robinson
Moses

Problem with that list is no allowance for league strength. Russell brought to 1995 is just a defensive 5/4 with a very poor shooting touch

OK, I can't seem to get a straight answer from you so I will just ask them one at a time so you may answer them.

1. Why does Drexler have more win shares than hakeem the year they won in the playoffs?

2. Why does David have a higher PER every year than Hakeem in the regular season?

3. You always refer to wins being so heavily involved in win shares, so why are Tim duncan's win shares below both Drobs and Hakeems when he was on much better teams and you have him above both?

bagwell368
09-22-2013, 12:20 PM
OK, I can't seem to get a straight answer from you so I will just ask them one at a time so you may answer them.

That's an accusation I seldom hear. You must have missed post #144 which was chock full of "answers".


1. Why does Drexler have more win shares than hakeem the year they won in the playoffs?

In the playoffs: they were virtually tied (2.8 and 3.0 are very close). Drexler had a better FT%, more steals, more assists, less turnovers, less fouls - Hakeem took a lot more FG's and hit a higher %, more rebounds, blocks, much better defense, and scored 9 PPG more. I can't even see why Hakeem would get less WS, but, given the actual games, Drexler and Hakeem both did their jobs very well - witness the title. Also to use a stat you seem to like Hakeem boinked Drelxer in PER with a massive 26.7 to Drexler's very good 21.1.


2. Why does David have a higher PER every year than Hakeem in the regular season?

PER as I and others including the creator of the stat see a lot of problems with it. It's even worse than Win Shares at rewarding defense, and has a number of holes. DO you even pay attention to context? SAS was a much better team in Robinson's 10 year prime vs Hakeem's. More good players, more guys to pass too, more guys for the D to defend. Hakeem had to force quite a few shots because there were few options.

Do a google search and tell me how many basketball writers have Robinson as being better than Hakeem? Maybe they factor in Robinson's pathetic playoff outputs in wins and titles in his prime given his teams premium seeding in 7 of his 10 best seasons, with NO titles vs Hakeem's much raggier team that won one title as a #6 seed. Maybe they count Robinon's pathetic playoff performance vs Hameem in his one MVP year? I don't know, go find out.


3. You always refer to wins being so heavily involved in win shares, so why are Tim duncan's win shares below both Drobs and Hakeems when he was on much better teams and you have him above both?

Never thought about it, why don't you come up with a working theory and let us all know...

IKnowHoops
09-23-2013, 03:35 AM
That's an accusation I seldom hear. You must have missed post #144 which was chock full of "answers".



In the playoffs: they were virtually tied (2.8 and 3.0 are very close). Drexler had a better FT%, more steals, more assists, less turnovers, less fouls - Hakeem took a lot more FG's and hit a higher %, more rebounds, blocks, much better defense, and scored 9 PPG more. I can't even see why Hakeem would get less WS, but, given the actual games, Drexler and Hakeem both did their jobs very well - witness the title. Also to use a stat you seem to like Hakeem boinked Drelxer in PER with a massive 26.7 to Drexler's very good 21.1.



PER as I and others including the creator of the stat see a lot of problems with it. It's even worse than Win Shares at rewarding defense, and has a number of holes. DO you even pay attention to context? SAS was a much better team in Robinson's 10 year prime vs Hakeem's. More good players, more guys to pass too, more guys for the D to defend. Hakeem had to force quite a few shots because there were few options.

Do a google search and tell me how many basketball writers have Robinson as being better than Hakeem? Maybe they factor in Robinson's pathetic playoff outputs in wins and titles in his prime given his teams premium seeding in 7 of his 10 best seasons, with NO titles vs Hakeem's much raggier team that won one title as a #6 seed. Maybe they count Robinon's pathetic playoff performance vs Hameem in his one MVP year? I don't know, go find out.



Never thought about it, why don't you come up with a working theory and let us all know...


Easy, your theory on win shares being as heavily win driven as you like to imply is pure B.S. Case in point.

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 06:31 AM
[/B]

Easy, your theory on win shares being as heavily win driven as you like to imply is pure B.S. Case in point.

It's not a theory, it's an observed fact.

You call that an example? I call it a ridiculous sample size. OK, time to call in the actual creator of Win Shares. From: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

We get these direct quotes:


In my system, one win is equivalent to one Win Share.

In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take.

Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins (bags says: AKA 3.3%)

Anyone else care to take on the fact that win shares ~= team wins in any given year? I certainly hope not. I further hope that those that use Win Shares account for this when they use it going forward - among other factors.

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 08:50 AM
^ Now for a real world example.

John Havlicek 1969 vs 1973
Win Shares 7.3 vs 12.1

I contend these years were quite similar to each other in actual real value. Certainly much closer than the raw numeric difference of '73 being 39.7% better than '69

1. 48 wins vs 68 wins (JH '69 WS/48 = .152; JH '73 WS/68 is .178; (that's a 14.6% difference, not 39.7%)

2. JH played 5.7% more minutes in '73 than '69, have to adjust for that, it's now 5.7% closer

3. JH shot much better as he got older, he was only a .405 FG% in '69 well below the league at .441 - (mostly because his technique wasn't as good, and also because he was THE guy on a meh team).

He shot .450 in '73 compared to the league .456. He made 9.6 FG per game in '73 compared to 8.4 per game in '69. That's 1.2 more FG per game on only .5 more FGA per game. He went from .780 to .858 on his FT % as well.

So in 1968-69 given the same time played as '73, on a 68 win team, Havlicek was at least a 10.8 WS player, the rest of the difference was made up in much better shooting efficiency in favor of '73.

That's how you arrive at a an answer with multiple inputs:


recall times you've seen them play
look at stats
adjust for wins
adjust for conditions (responsibilities the same? injuries, age, etc.)
adjust time played

and make meaning out of them

The common way here among people who dabble in advanced stats is:


reading a number off of a page and transcribing it along with "player X was better than player Y because Win Shares says so".

That's garbage effort and garbage results in most cases. The closer the team wins and minutes played are the closer the answer will be too correct, but to not factor all other known factors - either it's a lazy effort, or you have to learn more about the player(s) involved and more about the game and what matters and what doesn't.

Many in the 18-30 generation are under the impression that dunks, deep 3's, blocks, fist pumps, and steals is a huge part of the game. It's not. Few have seen a large number of live games, fewer still look away from the ball to see the picks, rolls, screens, cuts, switches, rotations, that NEVER end up in a stat book, and thus have no real depth of understanding of the game they spend so much time on. What an utter shame.

IKnowHoops
09-23-2013, 11:52 AM
It's not a theory, it's an observed fact.

You call that an example? I call it a ridiculous sample size. OK, time to call in the actual creator of Win Shares. From: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

We get these direct quotes:


In my system, one win is equivalent to one Win Share.

In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take.

Because this metric is designed to estimate a player's contribution in terms of wins, it makes sense to see if the sum of player Win Shares for a particular team closely matches the team win total. For the 2008-09 Cavaliers the sum of player Win Shares is 67.9, while the team win total is 66, an error of 66 - 67.9 = -1.9 wins. For the 1964-65 Royals the sum of player Win Shares is 43.5, while the team total is 48, an error of 48 - 43.5 = 4.5 wins. These errors are actually close to the "typical" error; looking at all NBA teams since the 1962-63 season (the last season we have complete player splits), the average absolute error is 2.74 wins (bags says: AKA 3.3%)

Anyone else care to take on the fact that win shares ~= team wins in any given year? I certainly hope not. I further hope that those that use Win Shares account for this when they use it going forward - among other factors.

Great copy, to bad you can't explain why Tim has less win shares than dream or Admiral with more wins on his team though. Well you could, but then you would have to admit that David was a more productive player than Tim or Dream.

IKnowHoops
09-23-2013, 12:12 PM
Here we go.
Who was the best center? http://epopic.com/visit/14

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 03:48 PM
Great copy, to bad you can't explain why Tim has less win shares than dream or Admiral with more wins on his team though. Well you could, but then you would have to admit that David was a more productive player than Tim or Dream.

Hunh? I already have:

1. difference in team wins
2. inability of WS to count much of the D ability of the greatest defenders

I must stay I have seldom seen a more pathetic, less self aware post in my time here (that's 6 years).

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 03:54 PM
Here we go.
Who was the best center? http://epopic.com/visit/14

Even more pathetic. Where is Wilt, Jabbar, Russell, and Duncan for instance. BTW, what's Ewing doing there? Nobody has him top 4. That's a joke.

I said writer, not some bloger who probably has a mostly or all Spurs fan base (adding Duncan in the poll would have killed Robinson's % too BTW).

Thanks for the laugh.

In the words of Bugs Bunny's writers "what a maroon..."

IKnowHoops
09-23-2013, 04:21 PM
Hunh? I already have:

1. difference in team wins
2. inability of WS to count much of the D ability of the greatest defenders

I must stay I have seldom seen a more pathetic, less self aware post in my time here (that's 6 years).


1.Don't no how many ways to say it to you, but this does not hold true buddy. If it did Tim would have more WS but he doesn't. Try again.

2. Both David and Hakeem averaged more blocks than tim did so still don't know what ur referring to.

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 04:32 PM
1.Don't no how many ways to say it to you, but this does not hold true buddy. If it did Tim would have more WS but he doesn't. Try again.

Did you fail to understand the words of the man who invented "Win Shares" for basketball-reference? He said Wins is supposed to be equal to "Win Shares" in a given season and that the error on average is 3.3%.

Since SAS with Robinson won a lot more game (that 10 year peak period I pointed out it was 55 to 47.3 games). If you still can't or don't understand the impact of that difference, all I can say is go back to school.


2. Both David and Hakeem averaged more blocks than tim did so still don't know what ur referring to.

Blocks is ~3-6% of the value of defensive player. D rebounds are much higher in value for instance. Steals are similar to blocks (and man look at Hakeem's steal count).

You know right that you can go to basketball-reference and get the formula, right? So go for it.

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 04:37 PM
The creator of "Win Shares" writes:

In my system, one win is equivalent to one Win Share.

In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take.


So, vote crew:

1. he's a troll
2. he's dense

Which is it?

IKnowHoops
09-24-2013, 08:39 PM
Did you fail to understand the words of the man who invented "Win Shares" for basketball-reference? He said Wins is supposed to be equal to "Win Shares" in a given season and that the error on average is 3.3%.

Since SAS with Robinson won a lot more game (that 10 year peak period I pointed out it was 55 to 47.3 games). If you still can't or don't understand the impact of that difference, all I can say is go back to school.



Blocks is ~3-6% of the value of defensive player. D rebounds are much higher in value for instance. Steals are similar to blocks (and man look at Hakeem's steal count).

You know right that you can go to basketball-reference and get the formula, right? So go for it.

I ask about Tim Duncan and you give me David and Hakeems stats. SMH Take your medicine and go to sleep.

Last chance man.

Tim has more wins than both during his prime years, but less win shares than both during there prime years. This is where your more wins equals more win shares falls apart. Explain this adequately and I go away.

TheMightyHumph
09-24-2013, 09:00 PM
Stunned that this thread has gotten this far.

Chronz
09-24-2013, 09:08 PM
Stunned that this thread has gotten this far.
Alot of stubbornness thats why.

bagwell368
09-24-2013, 09:49 PM
Last chance man.

Tim has more wins than both during his prime years, but less win shares than both during there prime years. This is where your more wins equals more win shares falls apart. Explain this adequately and I go away.

Since you keep switching from David and Hakeen to Duncan in the same post, you need to carefully lay out what you're attempting to get at, because in the same sentence you wrote:

"Tim has more wins than both during his prime years" "but less win shares than both during there prime years"

Name the years you're talking about, and clear up the obscure language.


Last chance? That's a good one. You've ignored question after question, and fact after fact. Why should I honor your requests, when you can't conduct yourself at even a minimally competent level? Or maybe I was still belly laughing at that pathetic post #162. I mean, what garbage.

FlashBolt
09-25-2013, 04:13 AM
Did you fail to understand the words of the man who invented "Win Shares" for basketball-reference? He said Wins is supposed to be equal to "Win Shares" in a given season and that the error on average is 3.3%.

Since SAS with Robinson won a lot more game (that 10 year peak period I pointed out it was 55 to 47.3 games). If you still can't or don't understand the impact of that difference, all I can say is go back to school.



Blocks is ~3-6% of the value of defensive player. D rebounds are much higher in value for instance. Steals are similar to blocks (and man look at Hakeem's steal count).

You know right that you can go to basketball-reference and get the formula, right? So go for it.

I ask about Tim Duncan and you give me David and Hakeems stats. SMH Take your medicine and go to sleep.

Last chance man.

Tim has more wins than both during his prime years, but less win shares than both during there prime years. This is where your more wins equals more win shares falls apart. Explain this adequately and I go away.

I am very lost by your arguments. Actually, what is your argument? If given facts, stop throwing out opinions and data that doesn't debunk the facts given. Win shares, as anyone who isn't an idiot, is very manipulative as it doesn't take into affect the environment of a team. No one uses it as a creditable argument. Is Dwight Howard better than Hakeem? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. So if you want to use w/s, is Dirk better than Hakeem? I really can't fathom the process going into your posts. Do you just reply back because you try and convince yourself that you are "correct", or are you just confused? The worst part is how you even compared Robinson to Tim Duncan. This has got to be an insult to David Robinson himself. Even DR would laugh; hysterically. Have a nice day, stop being hardheaded and drop your pointless ideas from escalating any further.

ddt
09-25-2013, 02:23 PM
This should be the Top 10:
MJ
Magic
Russell
KAJ
Kobe
Larry
Wilt
Big O
Shaq
Timmy

I dont see David Robinson on the list. but he's one of the best!

FlashBolt
09-25-2013, 03:49 PM
This should be the Top 10:
MJ
Magic
Russell
KAJ
Kobe
Larry
Wilt
Big O
Shaq
Timmy

I dont see David Robinson on the list. but he's one of the best!

What has Robertson done that James hasn't besides averaging a triple double in a very weakened era of basketball?

Guppyfighter
09-25-2013, 08:00 PM
This should be the Top 10:
MJ
Magic
Russell
KAJ
Kobe
Larry
Wilt
Big O
Shaq
Timmy

I dont see David Robinson on the list. but he's one of the best!


Having Kobe ahead of Wilt, Shaq, and Timmy? Okay. Lol.

IKnowHoops
09-26-2013, 04:00 AM
Since you keep switching from David and Hakeen to Duncan in the same post, you need to carefully lay out what you're attempting to get at, because in the same sentence you wrote:

"Tim has more wins than both during his prime years" "but less win shares than both during there prime years"

Name the years you're talking about, and clear up the obscure language.


Last chance? That's a good one. You've ignored question after question, and fact after fact. Why should I honor your requests, when you can't conduct yourself at even a minimally competent level? Or maybe I was still belly laughing at that pathetic post #162. I mean, what garbage.

Ok my I want this to be as simple as possible. You keep telling me the reason Hakeems win share/48 are lower than Davids because David won more games. I'm saying Davids win shares are better because he was the more productive player. Im saying I disagree that simply winning more games will automatically make your winshares higher. So to prove my point I want to just use Mike Jordan as our case study. By what your saying Mikes highes winshares/48 should coincide with his highest number of wins.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_season.html

Well if you look at the above, thats not the case. In fact.....

Not only is his 72 game season not his highest Win share/48

But his second most winning season of 69 wins in the 95-96 season has him at a lower winshares/48
than seasons in which he had...
61wins 90-91
50wins 87-88
47wins 88-89
55wins 89-90

So now we have two seasons where Jordan won almost 20 less games and yet still had higher win shares/48 in those seasons. Now you keep harping on the eight more wins that David had, and that is the reason he had more win shares. If this was the case, it would be impossible for Jordan to have more win shares in a 47 win season than he had in a 69 win season.
If you think Hakeem is better, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is you attributing David's higher win share/48 to him winning more games when in fact it was his superior play. Jordan proved that superior play will even trump himself winning 21 plus more games. Understand my point now?

bagwell368
09-26-2013, 08:49 AM
Ok my I want this to be as simple as possible. You keep telling me the reason Hakeems win share/48 are lower than Davids because David won more games.

I never said that was the sole reason. I said take two players of roughly equal skill and time played (that's a factor too), and put one on a 55 win team and one on a 47 win team, the one with the 55 win team is going to have more Win Shares (because there are roughly 47/55 more Win Shares available to the team with the 55 wins).

Obviously in a single year this might not hold true, but, using the 10 year Win Shares peak of both players makes it obvious that it's a large factor in the difference. I've proven this with those two.

I also provided a case using John Havlicek when in one year he had about 40% more win shares than another, and the prime difference was team wins, followed by time played, and the final difference was he shot a lot better in the higher WS year than the lower. Bread crumb trails, examples, logic - galore.


I'm saying Davids win shares are better because he was the more productive player. Im saying I disagree that simply winning more games will automatically make your winshares higher.

If Player A and Player B play the same amount and have equal talent (on the offensive side of the ball) and the difference in wins is more than minor - say 58 vs 46, then yeah in well over 90% of the years the guy on the 58 win team is going to have more win shares.

I say "offensive" because Win Shares do not capture defense that well. Hakeem to my eye, and the eye of every expert and commentator and poster I trust have Hakeem as a substantially better defender than DRob. Defense in Win Shares and DRtg are tied to the team (coaching and the quality of other players) so much that the numbers have to be reviewed, and corrected.

I used the case of McHale v Bird (if in not in this thread than another current one and at least two old ones). Bird shows up with a lot more DWS than McHale which is ridiculous. McHale was one of the greatest PF defenders of all time, that could also (and did) guard all the good offensive 3's in his time, and occasionally 5's (I remember one game in KAJ's twilight that McHale ate him alive).


So to prove my point I want to just use Mike Jordan as our case study. By what your saying Mikes highes winshares/48 should coincide with his highest number of wins.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_season.html

Well if you look at the above, thats not the case. In fact.....

Not only is his 72 game season not his highest Win share/48

But his second most winning season of 69 wins in the 95-96 season has him at a lower winshares/48
than seasons in which he had...
61wins 90-91
50wins 87-88
47wins 88-89
55wins 89-90

He didn't have the same season every year did he? Time played, FG%, 3PT%, FT%, Steals, rebounds, assists, blocks..... I mean how monolithic is your view of players and the game?? His name is Jordan, so he was equally great every year he played a full season, and the conditions around him remained fixed the whole time?

You think Jordan played the same in all of these years?

In eight of his best eight WS seasons his ORtg were the top eight of his career.

In four of his five best WS years, his TS% was the highest of his career.

In two of his three best WS years his STL% were the two highest of his career.

In 1988-89, Hodges, Paxson, and Grant were the only 3 guys he played with who were even a bit above average on offense, and not by that much either. So his offensive output was worth more relative to his team (42% WS/team wins of '88-'89 vs 33.3% of 1991-92). In 1991-92 they had a new Coach, with a far more productive offense, and Paxson, Grant, Pippen, and Armstrong were much more productive, hence 61 wins compared to 47. Jordan was roughly the same player, but not of course totally, and his WS were: 19.8 and 20.3 - gee....


So now we have two seasons where Jordan won almost 20 less games and yet still had higher win shares/48 in those seasons. Now you keep harping on the eight more wins that David had, and that is the reason he had more win shares. If this was the case, it would be impossible for Jordan to have more win shares in a 47 win season than he had in a 69 win season.

If you think Hakeem is better, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is you attributing David's higher win share/48 to him winning more games when in fact it was his superior play. Jordan proved that superior play will even trump himself winning 21 plus more games. Understand my point now?

I understand you really don't know how to parse the game re Win Shares do you, I can't say looking back that you've had one unique or interesting point yet. Or maybe it's your agenda that's keeping you from having a discussion.

I brought up WS tied to wins relative the the DRob v Hakeem arguments. Two players thought to be somewhat in the same class over a long period of time, you have now changed your focus to one players career, and are trying to cherry pick exceptions without looking at what the player did, and differences between players and coaches. You are attempting to win by changing the parameters of the debate and by hardly ever answering my questions and points when you cannot or it doesn't suit you.

Troll elsewhere.

bagwell368
09-26-2013, 09:00 AM
This should be the Top 10:
MJ
Magic
Russell
KAJ
Kobe
Larry
Wilt
Big O
Shaq
Timmy

I dont see David Robinson on the list. but he's one of the best!

MJ
KAJ
Magic
Wilt
Shaq
TD

Bird, Kobe, James, Hakeem, Oscar, both Malones, KG, Barkley, Stockton, West, Russell, Dirk, DRob - make up the rest of the top 20 (off the top of my head, I'm sure I missed someone).

No way is Russell 3rd - try 17th or so, Kobe is too high, Timmy and Shaq too low, Larry a bit too high

FlashBolt
09-26-2013, 12:44 PM
MJ
KAJ
Magic
Wilt
Shaq
TD

Bird, Kobe, James, Hakeem, Oscar, both Malones, KG, Barkley, Stockton, West, Russell, Dirk, DRob - make up the rest of the top 20 (off the top of my head, I'm sure I missed someone).

No way is Russell 3rd - try 17th or so, Kobe is too high, Timmy and Shaq too low, Larry a bit too high

Agreed, people who put Bill in a top 5 are just basing it off solely on his reputation for having rings. If that's the case, it's just going to be an ignorant individual arguing.

IKnowHoops
09-26-2013, 04:01 PM
I never said that was the sole reason. I said take two players of roughly equal skill and time played (that's a factor too), and put one on a 55 win team and one on a 47 win team, the one with the 55 win team is going to have more Win Shares (because there are roughly 47/55 more Win Shares available to the team with the 55 wins).

Obviously in a single year this might not hold true, but, using the 10 year Win Shares peak of both players makes it obvious that it's a large factor in the difference. I've proven this with those two.

I also provided a case using John Havlicek when in one year he had about 40% more win shares than another, and the prime difference was team wins, followed by time played, and the final difference was he shot a lot better in the higher WS year than the lower. Bread crumb trails, examples, logic - galore.



If Player A and Player B play the same amount and have equal talent (on the offensive side of the ball) and the difference in wins is more than minor - say 58 vs 46, then yeah in well over 90% of the years the guy on the 58 win team is going to have more win shares.

I say "offensive" because Win Shares do not capture defense that well. Hakeem to my eye, and the eye of every expert and commentator and poster I trust have Hakeem as a substantially better defender than DRob. Defense in Win Shares and DRtg are tied to the team (coaching and the quality of other players) so much that the numbers have to be reviewed, and corrected.

I used the case of McHale v Bird (if in not in this thread than another current one and at least two old ones). Bird shows up with a lot more DWS than McHale which is ridiculous. McHale was one of the greatest PF defenders of all time, that could also (and did) guard all the good offensive 3's in his time, and occasionally 5's (I remember one game in KAJ's twilight that McHale ate him alive).



He didn't have the same season every year did he? Time played, FG%, 3PT%, FT%, Steals, rebounds, assists, blocks..... I mean how monolithic is your view of players and the game?? His name is Jordan, so he was equally great every year he played a full season, and the conditions around him remained fixed the whole time?

You think Jordan played the same in all of these years?

In eight of his best eight WS seasons his ORtg were the top eight of his career.

In four of his five best WS years, his TS% was the highest of his career.

In two of his three best WS years his STL% were the two highest of his career.

In 1988-89, Hodges, Paxson, and Grant were the only 3 guys he played with who were even a bit above average on offense, and not by that much either. So his offensive output was worth more relative to his team (42% WS/team wins of '88-'89 vs 33.3% of 1991-92). In 1991-92 they had a new Coach, with a far more productive offense, and Paxson, Grant, Pippen, and Armstrong were much more productive, hence 61 wins compared to 47. Jordan was roughly the same player, but not of course totally, and his WS were: 19.8 and 20.3 - gee....



I understand you really don't know how to parse the game re Win Shares do you, I can't say looking back that you've had one unique or interesting point yet. Or maybe it's your agenda that's keeping you from having a discussion.

I brought up WS tied to wins relative the the DRob v Hakeem arguments. Two players thought to be somewhat in the same class over a long period of time, you have now changed your focus to one players career, and are trying to cherry pick exceptions without looking at what the player did, and differences between players and coaches. You are attempting to win by changing the parameters of the debate and by hardly ever answering my questions and points when you cannot or it doesn't suit you.

Troll elsewhere.

DUDE YOU ARE HILARIOUS!!!!!!!! Of course he didnt play the same. And neither did David and Hakeem. If you look at the stats David is better than hakeem, just as Mike was better than himself. This is my point. The same reason Mike had higher win shares with less wins than he had in other seasons, is the same reason David has more win shares. If David would of won less games than Hakeem, he would of had more win shares by simply being the more productive player. Period. Do you understand?!?!?!?!? If you still don't understand see Jordan 47wins vs Jordan 69wins.

Now please, will you stop trolling and just realize that your wins/winshare argument has no place in this debate. We can never have two players that have the exact same stats.

There you go, that last bold part is what you need to focus on when comparing David and Hakeem. David produed more and had a higher pct of his teams production than Hakeem, and thats why he has more win shares. Finally you post something that is real. If you don't realise it, you also just proved why wins are not as important as you think, because a bad team who wins less will have the player with a higher pct of his teams output. Good job, you debunked your own theory for me.

So if Hakeems teams were worse, and he had less help, then he should have a higher pct of production compared to his team to offset David's wins. But this simply isnt the case buddy. Im just gonna let you argue against yourself from now on. Its only a matter of time before you come full circle.

IKnowHoops
09-26-2013, 04:13 PM
DUDE YOU ARE HILARIOUS!!!!!!!! Of course he didnt play the same. And neither did David and Hakeem. If you look at the stats David is better than hakeem, just as Mike was better than himself. This is my point. The same reason Mike had higher win shares with less wins than he had in other seasons, is the same reason David has more win shares. If David would of won less games than Hakeem, he would of had more win shares by simply being the more productive player. Period. Do you understand?!?!?!?!? If you still don't understand see Jordan 47wins vs Jordan 69wins.

Now please, will you stop trolling and just realize that your wins/winshare argument has no place in this debate. We can never have two players that have the exact same stats.

What your forgetting is that two people can have the exact same stats and one guy can have less wins and still he can have more win shares than the guy with more wins if he has a higher percentage of his teams productivity. Your picking one of 1000 different variables that go into this stat. It doesn't work like that young man.

Jordan was amazing every year. For his win shares to be higher in a 47 win season than it was in a 69 win season, that should tell you that when comparing Drob and Hakeem's winshares, you should be focussing on another reason why Drob had more winshares than wins and your better team argument. That argument gets blown away when comparing Jordan's career sir and if you don't agree, your just in denial now.

Your exaggerating the effect wins have on winshares when comparing David and Hakeem. They are more different than what Jordan was from himself. David just outplayed him in the regular season plain and simple. The effect wins had are as inconsequential as they were for Mike.

FlashBolt
09-26-2013, 04:34 PM
Jordan was amazing every year. For his win shares to be higher in a 47 win season than it was in a 69 win season, that should tell you that when comparing Drob and Hakeem's winshares, you should be focussing on another reason why Drob had more winshares than wins and your better team argument. That argument gets blown away when comparing Jordan's career sir and if you don't agree, your just in denial now.

Your exaggerating the effect wins have on winshares when comparing David and Hakeem. They are more different than what Jordan was from himself. David just outplayed him in the regular season plain and simple. The effect wins had are as inconsequential as they were for Mike.


David Robinson isn't even a top 5 center, stop it.

IKnowHoops
09-26-2013, 04:35 PM
In 1988-89, Hodges, Paxson, and Grant were the only 3 guys he played with who were even a bit above average on offense, and not by that much either. So his offensive output was worth more relative to his team (42% WS/team wins of '88-'89 vs 33.3% of 1991-92). In 1991-92 they had a new Coach, with a far more productive offense, and Paxson, Grant, Pippen, and Armstrong were much more productive, hence 61 wins compared to 47. Jordan was roughly the same player, but not of course totally, and his WS were: 19.8 and 20.3 - gee....

This is my favorite post by you Bagwell. You prove my entire argument with this. You say Jordan was roughly the same player. The win shares are roughly the same. Yet he won 24 more games. You proved my point that wins don't mean anything because it is offset by a players production relative to his team. David had more win shares because he was more productive. Bagwell says so. Standing Ovation.

bagwell368
09-26-2013, 09:28 PM
Here is the answer... I posted this what 10 days or two weeks ago. Didn't you understand what it meant at the time? Try again.




Hakeem & DRob's top 10 years in WS listed hierarchically:

year, win shares, seed, playoff rounds won, team wins:


Hakeem Robinson

1992-93* 15.8 - 2 - 1 - 55 | 1993-94* - 4 - 0 - 20.0 - 55
1993-94* 14.3 - 2 - 4 - 58 | 1995-96* - 2 - 1 - 18.3 - 59
1988-89* 12.4 - 5 - 0 - 45 | 1994-95* - 1 - 2 - 17.5 - 62
1989-90* 11.2 - 8 - 0 - 41 | 1990-91* - 2 - 0 - 17.0 - 55
1986-87* 10.9 - 6 - 1 - 42 | 1989-90* - 2 - 1 - 15.1 - 56
1987-88* 10.7 - 6 - 0 - 46 | 1991-92* - 5 - 0 - 13.9 - 47
1994-95* 10.7 - 6 - 4 - 47 | 1997-98* - 5 - 1 - 13.8 - 56
1984-85* 10.2 - 3 - 0 - 48 | 1992-93* - 5 - 1 - 13.2 - 49
1991-92* 09.8 - 9 - N - 42 | 1999-00* - 4 - 0 - 12.7 - 53
1995-96* 09.7 - 5 - 1 - 48 | 2000-01* - 1 - 2 - 12.1 - 58
115.7 52 11 472 | 31 8 156.6 550

So, let's parse the numbers:

Houston won only 86% as many regular season games as SAS 55 > 47.2. So SAS was better. If necessary I'll parse out the 3 best other players on each team in these 10 years on paper, but I've looked at it before, SAS had better players than Houston.

Hakeem is only 73% as good as DRob according to Win Shares. However, when you look at their win shares vs the team win count (the basis for win shares), it's 24.5% for Hakeem and 28.4% for Robinson.

One of the pet peeves fans that understand metrics have is that the offensive part of the game is fairly well covered, but that defense isn't. I don't know a single writer or senior fan of the game that thinks Robinson's D was better than Hakeem's. <Except maybe that silly blogger site you posted>

That goes a long way to explaining why the gray hairs here usually take Hakeem over Robinson, and that explains all if not more of the difference in the "team win adjusted win share" numbers I'm using. Also consider that since Hakeem's teams were weaker, he faced more help/double teams than Robinson, because who else would you focus on?

Another example of Win Shares vs Team Wins I've posted on PSD is Oscar Robinson's best 10 year vs Bill Russell's. Russell has more win shares because his team is better, a lot better, but Oscar earned a much higher percentage of his teams wins, making him more valuable by that stat to his team than Russell to his. So in cases when comparing two players from teams with markedly different records you ought to stop and think about what those numbers really say.

SAS averaged a seeding of 3.1 (only 3 times at 5th, the other 7 in the top 4), much better then Houston's 5.2 (only 3 years in the top 4 seed, 4 years lower than any of the 10 SAS seeds, two at 5th seed... and Houston missed the playoffs once, SAS never did).

But Houston won 11 playoff rounds to 8 for SAS, and wow, they won two titles to zero for the better team, with the better seeding.

Career longevity well favors Hakeem, and of course so does leading his team to two titles (one of them with one of the 3 weakest Finals winning teams in NBA history) from lower seeds. Robinson's career was shorter, his playoff results until TD came along and allowed the ancient 4th banana Robinson to be part of a title - was frankly headed to top 5 all time playoff choke careers.

Go online to other sites, published writers, etc. That's the consensus. I'm not always in agreement with the consensus, but here, they are dead on. And no I'm a fan of neither team, but I am of great players. Hakeem was greater than Robinson. So was Wilt, Shaq, and Jabbar. I don't count TD as a Center, if you do, he goes on the list above Robinson. Robinson was better than Russell and Malone although it's close, and much better than the rest. No slight to Robinson, he's just not better than 5th (or 6th) Center and about 16-19th best player.

I can't wait for what method of avoidance we'll get this time.

bagwell368
09-26-2013, 09:29 PM
This is my favorite post by you Bagwell. You prove my entire argument with this. You say Jordan was roughly the same player. The win shares are roughly the same. Yet he won 24 more games. You proved my point that wins don't mean anything because it is offset by a players production relative to his team. David had more win shares because he was more productive. Bagwell says so. Standing Ovation.

Check out post #184 - you know, back on topic.

bagwell368
09-26-2013, 09:50 PM
If David would of won less games than Hakeem, he would of had more win shares by simply being the more productive player. Period. Do you understand?!?!?!?!?[/B]

That might be true if a players team is very weak, and the player was very great. Well SAS was never weak in DRob's time - in part due to him, and also his teammates, and Coaching staff.

However, the argument for almost the entire thread has been two roughly equal players, one playing for a better team and one for a worse one. Hakeem's Win Shares as a percentage of his teams wins compared DRob's is a lot closer than the win shares head to head, which means your argument isn't holding sway in this comparison, and it never did.


Now please, will you stop trolling and just realize that your wins/winshare argument has no place in this debate.

Of course it does. Your problem is that you can only seem to focus on one fact at a time, and as soon as we are talking team wins, win shares, lack of data collection for defensive win shares, time played, state of the team (coach, players) etc, it all seems to get to be too much for you.


David produed more and had a higher pct of his teams production than Hakeem, and thats why he has more win shares.

Post #184 from weeks ago (thoughtfully reposted explains it for you once again).


why wins are not as important as you think, because a bad team who wins less will have the player with a higher pct of his teams output.

I'm sorry that you don't understand. Wins are crucial, that's where win shares come from. A player like KG or Hakeem that plays for a weak team for a long time usually gets a huge amount of defensive attention, that detracts from offensive output/efficiency - I'm sure even you can appreciate that.

Cute factoid of the day:

Google "David Robinson" "top 5 center" = 156k hits
Google Hakeem "top 5 center" - 319k hits

FlashBolt
09-26-2013, 11:31 PM
That might be true if a players team is very weak, and the player was very great. Well SAS was never weak in DRob's time - in part due to him, and also his teammates, and Coaching staff.

However, the argument for almost the entire thread has been two roughly equal players, one playing for a better team and one for a worse one. Hakeem's Win Shares as a percentage of his teams wins compared DRob's is a lot closer than the win shares head to head, which means your argument isn't holding sway in this comparison, and it never did.



Of course it does. Your problem is that you can only seem to focus on one fact at a time, and as soon as we are talking team wins, win shares, lack of data collection for defensive win shares, time played, state of the team (coach, players) etc, it all seems to get to be too much for you.



Post #184 from weeks ago (thoughtfully reposted explains it for you once again).



I'm sorry that you don't understand. Wins are crucial, that's where win shares come from. A player like KG or Hakeem that plays for a weak team for a long time usually gets a huge amount of defensive attention, that detracts from offensive output/efficiency - I'm sure even you can appreciate that.

Cute factoid of the day:

Google "David Robinson" "top 5 center" = 156k hits
Google Hakeem "top 5 center" - 319k hits

It is useless debating someone who thinks win shares is the definition of basketball greats. He'll just tell you the same nonsense that David Robinson had a higher win share.

Chronz
09-27-2013, 01:01 AM
How about we name the years they were on top, or was dream always better, every year.

IKnowHoops
09-27-2013, 01:57 AM
It is useless debating someone who thinks win shares is the definition of basketball greats. He'll just tell you the same nonsense that David Robinson had a higher win share.

Dude don't be a fool for fools sake. I said I have no problem with someone thinking Dream was better. Just don't tell me Drob had more winshares because his team won more games. Drob got more win shares because he was the more productive player. Im not even debating who was better. Im saying Drob was more productive than hakeem. To some that means better, to some it doesn't. You bring nothing to this conversation so just stop posting your brain farts.

IKnowHoops
09-27-2013, 02:27 AM
It is useless debating someone who thinks win shares is the definition of basketball greats. He'll just tell you the same nonsense that David Robinson had a higher win share.

Its not just win shares that he kills 99.9% of the people in NBA history. And its not just that he has a higher win share or PER than Hakeem. He kills Hakeem in these stats. The other guys that are there with him are Wilt, Jordan, Lebron, and Jabbar. So go figure why I have him ranked so high on my list.

IKnowHoops
09-27-2013, 02:45 AM
That might be true if a players team is very weak, and the player was very great. Well SAS was never weak in DRob's time - in part due to him, and also his teammates, and Coaching staff.

Man you really have no idea what your talking about. David was #1 pick in the draft. A team has to be awful to get the #1 pick. He then proceeded to lead the Spurs to the biggest turn around in NBA history. Saying Drobs teammates were not weak shows your lack of knowledge of this subject.


However, the argument for almost the entire thread has been two roughly equal players, one playing for a better team and one for a worse one. Hakeem's Win Shares as a percentage of his teams wins compared DRob's is a lot closer than the win shares head to head, which means your argument isn't holding sway in this comparison, and it never did.

Another misconception that you are trying to make fact. David's teamates were not better than Hakeems. Lets see Dale Elis, Sean Elliot, Dennis Rodman, Avery Johnson, Vinny del negro. Those were the best players David played with. I'll take Thorpe and Drexler over any of those guys. You really are lacking knowledge on this subject. I was heavy into the spurs, and you thinking that David had good help is ridiculous.




Of course it does. Your problem is that you can only seem to focus on one fact at a time, and as soon as we are talking team wins, win shares, lack of data collection for defensive win shares, time played, state of the team (coach, players) etc, it all seems to get to be too much for you.

I was about to say the same thing about you. You hang on team wins so much, even though we both know that it is negated by individual production compared to the team your on. So as you showed earlier. 2 guys with the exact same production on two different teams will have the a very close win share because while the player that wins more will benefit from the wins. The player on the worse team will benefit by having a higher percentage of the teams production. Case in point Jordan 69 wins verses Jordans 47 wins. So again wins matter just as much as percentage of team production therefore you cannot mention one without the other, and since you are not mentioning the latter, there is no reason to mention team wins and so again, wins don't matter because all variables are being accounted for.




Post #184 from weeks ago (thoughtfully reposted explains it for you once again).

Not really


I'm sorry that you don't understand. Wins are crucial, that's where win shares come from. A player like KG or Hakeem that plays for a weak team for a long time usually gets a huge amount of defensive attention, that detracts from offensive output/efficiency - I'm sure even you can appreciate that.

First off KG's got a couple of win share seasons higher than Duncan's best so again stop it. And if it was as important as you proclaim than there is no way Jordan's 69 win season can produce less win shares for him than his 47 win season off of basically the exact same production. But it does. Because while you harp on wins, there are other variables just as important and more important than team wins.


Cute factoid of the day:

Google "David Robinson" "top 5 center" = 156k hits
Google Hakeem "top 5 center" - 319k hits

wow debate over then

Team wins are 1 of many variables that produce win shares. But plain and simple, if they had equal wins, David would still have a much higher winshare than Hakeem. So again, wins mean nothing in this argument bro.

bagwell368
09-27-2013, 07:00 AM
Man you really have no idea what your talking about. David was #1 pick in the draft. A team has to be awful to get the #1 pick. He then proceeded to lead the Spurs to the biggest turn around in NBA history. Saying Drobs teammates were not weak shows your lack of knowledge of this subject.

So, let's see what you are talking about:

1988-89: 21 wins
1989-90: 56 wins

SAS Added 35 wins, all due to DRob, that's your position?

Young man, take a look at the roster changes please:

Terry Cummings: 8.7 WS
Sean Elliot: 4.7 WS
Mo Cheeks: 4.4 WS

got 1.6 more WS out of 2nd year player Willie Anderson
got 2.5 WS out of Rod Strickland in only 31 games

That's 21.9 WS, add in DRob's 15.1 and that 37 Win Shares to match up to 35 wins. So while we can agree top 20 All Time player DRob is the single most important change, the other changes in total were greater.

So you didn't bother to look at the roster or you don't see these other changes as mattering? If so, that doesn't auger well for your objectivity and/or your understanding of cause and effect.


Another misconception that you are trying to make fact. David's teamates were not better than Hakeems. Lets see Dale Elis, Sean Elliot, Dennis Rodman, Avery Johnson, Vinny del negro. Those were the best players David played with. I'll take Thorpe and Drexler over any of those guys. You really are lacking knowledge on this subject. I was heavy into the spurs, and you thinking that David had good help is ridiculous.

Maxwell, Cummings, Person, Duncan... forget them?

Go ahead, do the peak 10 years of each guy and the top 4 WS guys they played with, and repeat this comment again.

Drexler played 35 games with Hakeem in his prime, 114 games with Hakeem in a bit of decline and 70 games well into his decline. For the last half of those games Hakeem was hitting his early decline. He's the best player Hakeem played with but outside of 1/2 a year they were not both peak, and BTW, I'd take Duncan over Drexler as a short team teammate, wouldn't you?


First off KG's got a couple of win share seasons higher than Duncan's best so again stop it. And if it was as important as you proclaim than there is no way Jordan's 69 win season can produce less win shares for him than his 47 win season off of basically the exact same production. But it does. Because while you harp on wins, there are other variables just as important and more important than team wins.


The fact that wins and win shares are tied together is undeniable since the person who invented the stat said they are supposed to be the same. Look at the competition, the Pistons went from a Championship team to an also ran. Look at the variance in Jordan's game, USG%, TS%, minutes played, look at the teammates. Those are the sorts of things that in total result in wins and the Win Share formula is modeled to give back a number very close to the number of team wins for all the players. How is that difficult to understand? BTW, there are other Jordan years that can be paired that show a stronger correlation of wins to win shares if somehow you still think the earth is flat.


wow debate over then

Good. It's getting tiring explaining so many simple things to some guy that claims he knows hoops.


Team wins are 1 of many variables that produce win shares. But plain and simple, if they had equal wins, David would still have a much higher winshare than Hakeem. So again, wins mean nothing in this argument bro.

This is wrong, as in horse before the cart. A number of variables produce wins. Win shares formula attempts to give credit for whom gets what share. The creator of win shares admits that there is a 2.8 team win to win shares variance on average. He also knows that offense is easier to measure than defense.

Again it's false that wins means nothing in this argument. You might wish it to be so, but it's not. I gave the measurements in post #184.

Mostly I've been arguing the 10 year peaks of each player. Now add the fact that Hakeem played 20.3% more games than DRob, won two titles (one time as a #6 seed with a very weak team) as the prime player of his team to one for DRob as the 3rd banana behind Duncan in his 14th and final year. DRob and SAS was a huge playoff failure until that 14th and final season.

PurpleLynch
09-27-2013, 08:03 AM
So, let's see what you are talking about:

1988-89: 21 wins
1989-90: 56 wins

SAS Added 35 wins, all due to DRob, that's your position?

Young man, take a look at the roster changes please:

Terry Cummings: 8.7 WS
Sean Elliot: 4.7 WS
Mo Cheeks: 4.4 WS

got 1.6 more WS out of 2nd year player Willie Anderson
got 2.5 WS out of Rod Strickland in only 31 games

That's 21.9 WS, add in DRob's 15.1 and that 37 Win Shares to match up to 35 wins. So while we can agree top 20 All Time player DRob is the single most important change, the other changes in total were greater.

So you didn't bother to look at the roster or you don't see these other changes as mattering? If so, that doesn't auger well for your objectivity and/or your understanding of cause and effect.



Maxwell, Cummings, Person, Duncan... forget them?

Go ahead, do the peak 10 years of each guy and the top 4 WS guys they played with, and repeat this comment again.

Drexler played 35 games with Hakeem in his prime, 114 games with Hakeem in a bit of decline and 70 games well into his decline. For the last half of those games Hakeem was hitting his early decline. He's the best player Hakeem played with but outside of 1/2 a year they were not both peak, and BTW, I'd take Duncan over Drexler as a short team teammate, wouldn't you?



The fact that wins and win shares are tied together is undeniable since the person who invented the stat said they are supposed to be the same. Look at the competition, the Pistons went from a Championship team to an also ran. Look at the variance in Jordan's game, USG%, TS%, minutes played, look at the teammates. Those are the sorts of things that in total result in wins and the Win Share formula is modeled to give back a number very close to the number of team wins for all the players. How is that difficult to understand? BTW, there are other Jordan years that can be paired that show a stronger correlation of wins to win shares if somehow you still think the earth is flat.



Good. It's getting tiring explaining so many simple things to some guy that claims he knows hoops.



This is wrong, as in horse before the cart. A number of variables produce wins. Win shares formula attempts to give credit for whom gets what share. The creator of win shares admits that there is a 2.8 team win to win shares variance on average. He also knows that offense is easier to measure than defense.

Again it's false that wins means nothing in this argument. You might wish it to be so, but it's not. I gave the measurements in post #184.

Mostly I've been arguing the 10 year peaks of each player. Now add the fact that Hakeem played 20.3% more games than DRob, won two titles (one time as a #6 seed with a very weak team) as the prime player of his team to one for DRob as the 3rd banana behind Duncan in his 14th and final year. DRob and SAS was a huge playoff failure until that 14th and final season.



Bagwell,you have soooo much knowledge in Bball. It's really mindblowing.Are you a coach or a Nba's historian? :)

TheMightyHumph
09-27-2013, 11:04 AM
wow debate over then

Team wins are 1 of many variables that produce win shares. But plain and simple, if they had equal wins, David would still have a much higher winshare than Hakeem. So again, wins mean nothing in this argument bro.

I'd still go with Moses as Hakeem's equal, and both of them over Robinson.

bagwell368
09-27-2013, 02:47 PM
OK, let's look at DRob closer.

In 1992-93 he had 13.2 Win Shares and
in 1994-95 he had 17.5 Win Shares.

So 1992-93 is 75.4% as many Win Shares as 1994-95. Was he injured? No. Did he play about the same both years? Yup, pretty close. So what's the difference? Oh yeah in '93 SAS won 49 games and in '95 they won 62. 49 wins is 79% as many as 62 wins.

that's 79% as many Win Shares in '93 as in '95.

My that's close once you adjust for wins, isn't it?

bagwell368
09-27-2013, 02:52 PM
I'd still go with Moses as Hakeem's equal, and both of them over Robinson.

Moses was like a beached whale on D more than 9-10' from the basket once he passed the first 1/3 of his career. You put him on a high post C, or a high post stretch 4 and he's gassed. Good D closer in, but not a shot blocker, very tough nasty rebounder on D glass, maybe even better on O glass. Elemental but very effective offense close to the basket. KAJ was terribly vulnerable to him.

He can't break into this group:

KAJ
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Robinson

He's the head of the next tier IMO, ahead of Russell, Ewing, and anyone else. If I had a team that had to play a team with a prime KAJ on it, I'd want Moses to help beat up/neutralize him, but he'd be the back-up/KAJ killer.

If I could only have one Center and I didn't know the foe, then it's Hakeem because he's the best all around and least vulnerable to domination of other Centers. People should look at him head to head. He outplayed DRob, Ewing, Shaq when Hakeem was still in his prime, KAJ (although he was very old), Mourning, etc. Because his career, and Ewing's were longer than DRob's, I think they faced more great Centers than any other Centers, but Hakeem outplayed them and Ewing not as much.

Hakeem leads all Centers in steals (well ahead of #2), blocks, 3rd in DWS, 7th in DRB, 9th in ORB; He's got the killer low post game, only McHale rivals him for moves, and only KAJ, Wilt, Moses, and Shaq were more dominant in terms of getting two in the low post on pure muscle, only KAJ had near the guile of Hakeem.

Some high post centers shot better than him, and some passed better (Walton, Russell, and a few more). None is as solid all around, and him and Robinson were probably the best athletes of the group. Robinson falls down in shortness of career, inability to transfer in season success and playoff seeding to anything but bitter ruination in his prime, and got ultra lucky to be on SAS when they scored Duncan to get him that ring as the 3rd banana as he was about to tap out.

FlashBolt
09-27-2013, 02:59 PM
It is useless debating someone who thinks win shares is the definition of basketball greats. He'll just tell you the same nonsense that David Robinson had a higher win share.

Dude don't be a fool for fools sake. I said I have no problem with someone thinking Dream was better. Just don't tell me Drob had more winshares because his team won more games. Drob got more win shares because he was the more productive player. Im not even debating who was better. Im saying Drob was more productive than hakeem. To some that means better, to some it doesn't. You bring nothing to this conversation so just stop posting your brain farts.

What is there to contribute? Your thinking is of simplicity. Dig into the formula and you'll see that win shares means jack. Bagwell has been giving you a teacher-pupil tutelage. You just come back with repetitions of D-Rob having a higher PER and WS. James had a 14.3 WS last year, that's one of the lowest of his career but he was certainly better than any of the past years. What does WS really mean in such context? D-Rob is not a top 8. He's barely a top 5 center, with Moses being a great argument. Please don't include Hakeem vs Robinson. 9/10, people would choose Hakeem. If your arguments are solely based off of WS and PER, there is no point in debating with you. There are numerous amount of players who posted higher WS and PER than Hakeem. How is this even proof?

TheMightyHumph
09-27-2013, 04:31 PM
Moses was like a beached whale on D more than 9-10' from the basket once he passed the first 1/3 of his career. You put him on a high post C, or a high post stretch 4 and he's gassed. Good D closer in, but not a shot blocker, very tough nasty rebounder on D glass, maybe even better on O glass. Elemental but very effective offense close to the basket. KAJ was terribly vulnerable to him.

He can't break into this group:

KAJ
Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Robinson

He's the head of the next tier IMO, ahead of Russell, Ewing, and anyone else. If I had a team that had to play a team with a prime KAJ on it, I'd want Moses to help beat up/neutralize him, but he'd be the back-up/KAJ killer.

If I could only have one Center and I didn't know the foe, then it's Hakeem because he's the best all around and least vulnerable to domination of other Centers. People should look at him head to head. He outplayed DRob, Ewing, Shaq when Hakeem was still in his prime, KAJ (although he was very old), Mourning, etc. Because his career, and Ewing's were longer than DRob's, I think they faced more great Centers than any other Centers, but Hakeem outplayed them and Ewing not as much.

Hakeem leads all Centers in steals (well ahead of #2), blocks, 3rd in DWS, 7th in DRB, 9th in ORB; He's got the killer low post game, only McHale rivals him for moves, and only KAJ, Wilt, Moses, and Shaq were more dominant in terms of getting two in the low post on pure muscle, only KAJ had near the guile of Hakeem.

Some high post centers shot better than him, and some passed better (Walton, Russell, and a few more). None is as solid all around, and him and Robinson were probably the best athletes of the group. Robinson falls down in shortness of career, inability to transfer in season success and playoff seeding to anything but bitter ruination in his prime, and got ultra lucky to be on SAS when they scored Duncan to get him that ring as the 3rd banana as he was about to tap out.

Having watched them play, I take Moses over D-Rob.

You don't have to agree with me

Chronz
09-27-2013, 06:21 PM
. Dig into the formula and you'll see that win shares means jack. Bagwell has been giving you a teacher-pupil tutelage.

Bagwell said winshares means jack? Maybe you're just as lost as he is. Maybe you're all lost.

Chronz
09-27-2013, 06:22 PM
Having watched them play, I take Moses over D-Rob.

You don't have to agree with me

When did you watch them play. I ask because depending on when you started, you would have a completely different view. He went from tireless worker to questionable work ethic pretty quickly.

TheMightyHumph
09-27-2013, 09:09 PM
When did you watch them play. I ask because depending on when you started, you would have a completely different view. He went from tireless worker to questionable work ethic pretty quickly.

Are you referring to D-Rob?

bagwell368
09-27-2013, 09:18 PM
Bagwell said winshares means jack? Maybe you're just as lost as he is. Maybe you're all lost.

Excuse me. I never said it was worth jack. After using it a lot for a few years, the last two years I've been reevaluating it starting with the very long Russell debates. These are my current issues with it:

1. Win Shares before 1978-79 are quite unreliable

2. Defensive Win Shares rely too much on team defensive play (talent of other players, coaching, and a coherent defense often made up of vets that have played together for some time - all can make a big difference)

3.a. Defensive Win Shares in the modern era are flawed by observation. Larry Bird ends up getting more DWS than Kevin McHale. 4 times between 1980-86, Bird topped the league in Win Shares. Even adjusting for Bird playing more than McHale, Bird almost always ends up with more win shares when they were both in their prime. This is despite the fact that McHale always drew the more difficult offensive forward on the other team - anywhere from Barkley (who said McHale was the best player he faced) to Dantley, while Bird got the likes of Iavaroni and Bobby Jones to cover. Bird was great at picking off passes, and playing his one foot in the paint D, but McHale was one of the few players in any era that could cover about 50% of the league on ball and not get beat very often.

3b. According to Defensive Win Shares and DRtg DRob is "better" than Hakeem - even isolating to a 10 year peak for each player, or career. Start a poll here, or go out and look for responsible sports journalist opinions on who played better D, Hakeem will win, and that's what I saw. Neither of those teams is "mine" and both of them were backwaters in terms of population/TV markets made important by their star Centers - so basically an even playing field from that that POV.

4. I found out in my comparing Russell to star players of his time such as: Oscar, Wilt, West, and Pettit, that while the Win Shares of each say one thing or another, looking at them after adjusting for minutes played, that the percentage of win shares to team wins they won gave a different view of who they were. Wilt by far had the highest ratio of Win Shares to team wins (filtering on his best 10 years per Win Shares), Oscar was 2nd, and West, Russell, and Pettit were fairly close. In this case here, Hakeem's Win Shares vs Team wins is much closer the DRob's percentage in the same comparison than just the raw Win Shares of both players which DRob beats Hakeem in no problem. The fact that Hakeem's teams won 47.3 games in that 10 year period and DRob's won 55 closely tracks my results. Toss in the missing defensive numbers for Hakeem (or overstated for DRob), and we're about there.

Advanced metrics are clearly better than standard metrics, but the data gathered for basketball advanced metrics is clearly lacking when compared to the sport that these metrics were modeled from - baseball. this means that these stats have to be understood and used in a proper and measured way if they are to be used to best advantage. Just quoting them (which I have done in the past) is not going to always give happy results.

TheMightyHumph
09-27-2013, 09:41 PM
Malone was the Prime reason Rockets got to the Finals in '81

Malone was the Prime reason Sixers won a Title in '83.

3 MVPs.

Was the Admiral EVER the Prime reason the Spurs made the Finals.

Was the Admiral EVER the Prime reason Spurs won a Title?

How many MVPs for the Admiral?

Moses was A FORCE. No players wanted to body-up vs. Moses.

The Admiral was absolutely the better defensive player.

Moses changed his teams missed shots into points.

Again, feel free to disagree with me. But advanced stats will never change my mind.

I've been a devout NBA fan since 1962.

If the game were played on paper, you could make a case.

However, the game is played, physically, strategically, and emotionally on the court, not on a piece of paper containing stats.

Chronz
09-27-2013, 10:10 PM
Are you referring to D-Rob?

Moses. D-Rob's work ethic was unquestioned throughout his entire career.

Chronz
09-27-2013, 10:12 PM
Excuse me. I never said it was worth jack.
Thats what I meant. I didn't try to put words in your mouth, it was a rhetorical question. Had I really wanted to know I would have asked you.

TheMightyHumph
09-27-2013, 10:26 PM
Moses. D-Rob's work ethic was unquestioned throughout his entire career.

Yeah, Moses was a 3X NBA MVP slacker

Chronz
09-27-2013, 11:04 PM
Yeah, Moses was a 3X NBA MVP slacker
Cute. But its sorta true.

IKnowHoops
09-28-2013, 12:30 AM
So, let's see what you are talking about:


1988-89: 21 wins
1989-90: 56 wins

SAS Added 35 wins, all due to DRob, that's your position?

Young man, take a look at the roster changes please:

Terry Cummings: 8.7 WS
Sean Elliot: 4.7 WS
Mo Cheeks: 4.4 WS

got 1.6 more WS out of 2nd year player Willie Anderson
got 2.5 WS out of Rod Strickland in only 31 games

That's 21.9 WS, add in DRob's 15.1 and that 37 Win Shares to match up to 35 wins. So while we can agree top 20 All Time player DRob is the single most important change, the other changes in total were greater.

So you didn't bother to look at the roster or you don't see these other changes as mattering? If so, that doesn't auger well for your objectivity and/or your understanding of cause and effect.




88-89
Alvin Robertson 17.2
Willie Anderson 16.6
Frank Brickowski 15.0
Greg Anderson 14.9
Johny Dawkins 13.4
Vernon Maxwell 12.1
Dallas Comegys 11.9
Darwin Cook 11.8
Dave Greenwood 11.3
Anthony Bowie 10.6
Micheal Anderson 10.5

89-90
Terry Cummings 19.6
Rod Strickland 15.4
Willie Anderson 15.2
Maurice Cheeks 13.9
Frank Brickowski 13.3
Sean Elliot 12.5
Reggie Williams 12.1
Vernon Maxwell 10.3

Above is each player with there respective PER that season. I didn't include David. I included only players that had a double digit PER. Which team is better to you? Without David, both teams get run dude. Without David both teams are among the bottom 2-3 teams. The players you refer to just came in and did what the players who left did. I will admit, I forgot that cummings put up good numbers David's rc season so I will say Terry definately added to it. But the rest of the players you mentioned are completely inconsiquential because the year before the players in there place were as good or better.

I don't know how you think you can get away with using Winshares by other players to prove a point on how good the spurs were, yet disregard winshares to prove how good David was. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.














Maxwell, Cummings, Person, Duncan... forget them?

Im talking pre duncan. Obviously the Spurs won with an awesome team. Not debating that. Im saying that David never had a team that could win a ring when he was in his prime.


Go ahead, do the peak 10 years of each guy and the top 4 WS guys they played with, and repeat this comment again.

Drexler played 35 games with Hakeem in his prime, 114 games with Hakeem in a bit of decline and 70 games well into his decline. For the last half of those games Hakeem was hitting his early decline. He's the best player Hakeem played with but outside of 1/2 a year they were not both peak, and BTW, I'd take Duncan over Drexler as a short team teammate, wouldn't you?

This also irks me. You want to talk about his rings as a main selling point to why Hakeem was better. Without Drexler, Hakeem doesn't win that second ring. Drexler had a higher win share than Hakeem in those playoffs, something David never had the luxury of.




The fact that wins and win shares are tied together is undeniable since the person who invented the stat said they are supposed to be the same. Look at the competition, the Pistons went from a Championship team to an also ran. Look at the variance in Jordan's game, USG%, TS%, minutes played, look at the teammates. Those are the sorts of things that in total result in wins and the Win Share formula is modeled to give back a number very close to the number of team wins for all the players. How is that difficult to understand? BTW, there are other Jordan years that can be paired that show a stronger correlation of wins to win shares if somehow you still think the earth is flat.



Good. It's getting tiring explaining so many simple things to some guy that claims he knows hoops.



This is wrong, as in horse before the cart. A number of variables produce wins. Win shares formula attempts to give credit for whom gets what share. The creator of win shares admits that there is a 2.8 team win to win shares variance on average. He also knows that offense is easier to measure than defense.

Again it's false that wins means nothing in this argument. You might wish it to be so, but it's not. I gave the measurements in post #184.

Mostly I've been arguing the 10 year peaks of each player. Now add the fact that Hakeem played 20.3% more games than DRob, won two titles (one time as a #6 seed with a very weak team) as the prime player of his team to one for DRob as the 3rd banana behind Duncan in his 14th and final year. DRob and SAS was a huge playoff failure until that 14th and final season.

We really need to shorten up your posts. Half the time your trying to make a point that I don't even care about. I actually have Hakeem in my top 8 too.

Bagwell answer me this. Do you think Magic or Bird could have lead those spurs teams pre duncan to a ring? So Terry Cummings/Willie Anderson are the next two best players for David. Compare that to Stockton/Hornacek, Worthy/Jabbar, Parish/Mchale. Do you think Bird or Magic would have lead the spurs to a better record? Now put David on a Team with Mchale/Parish or Worthy/Jabbar. Put David in his prime with those guys. He wasn't close to his prime with Tim. Imagine if he had been.

We arent going to agree on who is better between Hakeem and David. Again, I have no problem with you picking Hakeem. The thing is, you taking Hakeem doesn't change my thread title.

With equal talent I believe this.

Shaq
Jordan
Lebron
Wilt
Jabbar
Hakeem
Drob

Lead there teams to better records than any other players in the History of the game. The guys like Magic,Bird,BigO IMO could not lead teams to better records, and did not impact the game as much as the guys above did. The same guys I take Drob over, Id also take Hakeem over.

Chronz
09-28-2013, 12:45 AM
The guys like Magic,Bird,BigO IMO could not lead teams to better records, and did not impact the game as much as the guys above did. The same guys I take Drob over, Id also take Hakeem over.
Those are some truly special offensive players tho, whos game likely translates into the post season much better than D-Rob's face up game.

IKnowHoops
09-28-2013, 12:52 AM
OK, let's look at DRob closer.

In 1992-93 he had 13.2 Win Shares and
in 1994-95 he had 17.5 Win Shares.

So 1992-93 is 75.4% as many Win Shares as 1994-95. Was he injured? No. Did he play about the same both years? Yup, pretty close. So what's the difference? Oh yeah in '93 SAS won 49 games and in '95 they won 62. 49 wins is 79% as many as 62 wins.

that's 79% as many Win Shares in '93 as in '95.

My that's close once you adjust for wins, isn't it?

No he wasn't the same player. He went from averagin 23pts to 27pts and his PER went from 24 to 29. Those are huge jumps so I can definitely see why in 95 his winshare was also higher.

IKnowHoops
09-28-2013, 12:58 AM
Those are some truly special offensive players tho, whos game likely translates into the post season much better than D-Rob's face up game.

If it does, it doesn't account for David changing everyones shot that comes into the lane, the blocks he will get and rebounds. Plus David scored 71 so David can score. Those guys played with such talent they didnt get the constant double teaming that David and hakeem got. David would score at will if he had Jabbar and worthy on his team, or Parish and Mchale. How many open dunks would he have? How many open lanes to the hoop? I think David with equal talent does better period.

FlashBolt
09-28-2013, 01:41 AM
We really need to shorten up your posts. Half the time your trying to make a point that I don't even care about. I actually have Hakeem in my top 8 too.

Bagwell answer me this. Do you think Magic or Bird could have lead those spurs teams pre duncan to a ring? So Terry Cummings/Willie Anderson are the next two best players for David. Compare that to Stockton/Hornacek, Worthy/Jabbar, Parish/Mchale. Do you think Bird or Magic would have lead the spurs to a better record? Now put David on a Team with Mchale/Parish or Worthy/Jabbar. Put David in his prime with those guys. He wasn't close to his prime with Tim. Imagine if he had been.

We arent going to agree on who is better between Hakeem and David. Again, I have no problem with you picking Hakeem. The thing is, you taking Hakeem doesn't change my thread title.

With equal talent I believe this.

Shaq
Jordan
Lebron
Wilt
Jabbar
Hakeem
Drob

Lead there teams to better records than any other players in the History of the game. The guys like Magic,Bird,BigO IMO could not lead teams to better records, and did not impact the game as much as the guys above did. The same guys I take Drob over, Id also take Hakeem over.

About 6/7 of those are top 8. Actually, I've grown to appreciate your defense for Rob. He was a great player, I just don't think he's a top 8. You also only named 7 players, which is quite awkward because you left Magic/Bird/Big O out. I don't think Bird is top 8, but Magic is definitely top 8. He, Jordan, Kareem, and Wilt are locks for top 5. Imo, the only one capable of breaking past those players is LJ.

celtics86
09-28-2013, 02:35 AM
lmfao.

advanced stats for the LOSS and FAIL.

Drob wasn't even a top 2 Center of his generation (Hakeem and Shaq). Personally I don't even see how he was that much better than Ewing, if at ALL.

The guy was an infamous choker, whose prime was cut short, and consistently got outplayed by Barkley, Hakeem, and Malone.

He's not only NOT a top "8" player, he's not even top 12 or 14. He's the PERFECT reason why advanced stats are BULLSH*T and should pretty much NEVER be taken seriously.

He also got badly outplayed by Sabonis in 88.

bagwell368
09-28-2013, 10:14 PM
Malone was the Prime reason Rockets got to the Finals in '81

Yes


Malone was the Prime reason Sixers won a Title in '83.

He was a lot better than Chocolate Thunder, moving that team from very very good to elite, but Dr. J., Mo Cheeks, Bobby Jones, Toney, and others played a very big part too.


3 MVPs.

Can't deny those.


Was the Admiral EVER the Prime reason the Spurs made the Finals.

Was the Admiral EVER the Prime reason Spurs won a Title?

How many MVPs for the Admiral?

Moses was A FORCE. No players wanted to body-up vs. Moses.

The Admiral was absolutely the better defensive player.

Moses changed his teams missed shots into points.

Again, feel free to disagree with me. But advanced stats will never change my mind.

I've been a devout NBA fan since 1962.

If the game were played on paper, you could make a case.

However, the game is played, physically, strategically, and emotionally on the court, not on a piece of paper containing stats.

Well argued...

bagwell368
09-28-2013, 10:15 PM
Thats what I meant. I didn't try to put words in your mouth, it was a rhetorical question. Had I really wanted to know I would have asked you.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

bagwell368
09-28-2013, 11:20 PM
88-89
Alvin Robertson 17.2
Willie Anderson 16.6
Frank Brickowski 15.0
Greg Anderson 14.9
Johny Dawkins 13.4
Vernon Maxwell 12.1
Dallas Comegys 11.9
Darwin Cook 11.8
Dave Greenwood 11.3
Anthony Bowie 10.6
Micheal Anderson 10.5

89-90
Terry Cummings 19.6
Rod Strickland 15.4
Willie Anderson 15.2
Maurice Cheeks 13.9
Frank Brickowski 13.3
Sean Elliot 12.5
Reggie Williams 12.1
Vernon Maxwell 10.3

Above is each player with there respective PER that season. I didn't include David. I included only players that had a double digit PER. Which team is better to you?

PER is a flawed stat for starters, also such a list is worthless without minutes played. A guy with a 19.0 PER that played 321 minutes clearly has less impact than a guy with a 16.8 PER that played 788 minutes.


Without David, both teams get run dude. Without David both teams are among the bottom 2-3 teams.

That might be overdoing it a bit, but yeah w/o a Center of course they are no good, now plug in a league average Center, and then what? How about Jordan, Oscar, Wilt get removed from their teams, think they will be hoisting any banners, even with average players to replace them? I don't, so what's your point?


The players you refer to just came in and did what the players who left did.

In small part that's true, but they also played a bit or a lot above whom they replaced but since the team won so many more games those win shares were spread around a lot more thickly. That's what I've been saying.


I will admit, I forgot that cummings put up good numbers David's rc season so I will say Terry definately added to it. But the rest of the players you mentioned are completely inconsiquential because the year before the players in there place were as good or better.

Win Shares says you are wrong.

In '89 the 3 Centers earned 3.9 WS, and the 3 PF's earned 3.2 WS

In '90 the 2 Centers earned ~18.0 (about 1/3 of Brickowski's minutes were at PF) and
the 3 PF's earned ~11.0 WS.

That's 29 Win Shares but the team earned 37 more than '89 and that's 8 win shares (~14.3% of the teams total) that went to guys like Anderson, Eliot, Cheeks, Strickland above themselves in '89 or the guys they replaced.

BTW, You were just talking Robinson and then Cummings. Caldwell Jones came in for '90 and way outplayed Gudmundsen and Whitehead from '89; Brickowski played 400 less minutes in '90, but was worth .2 more Win Shares than '89.

No, the genius Larry Brown got himself a much stronger set of pieces to work with. No doubt Robinson and then Cummings were the big bananas, but to short shrift the rest of them by relying on PER to submerge the value they brought is a disservice to that SAS team, it's fans, and the folks on this thread.


I don't know how you think you can get away with using Winshares by other players to prove a point on how good the spurs were, yet disregard winshares to prove how good David was. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I've been using win shares all along, but, unlike more than 1/2 the people here that use them I know where at least some of the weak points are, and one of them is players that play for great teams get to draw more win shares year in and year out than players with weaker teams. I still haven't seen you produce a comprehensive list of teammates year by year of the 10 year peaks of each player (DRob and Hakeem) by win shares, which will prove BY win shares that Houston was a weaker team year in and year out. You're the one that hoists DRob up with his win shares, then you need to answer arguments against him and/or win shares. Not doing it, as you have done throughout this thread is true hypocrisy.



Im saying that David never had a team that could win a ring when he was in his prime.

So you really believe that? Excluding the two teams he was on that won the title, that gives us 12 years.

In those 12 years, the NBA Champ won with under 60 regular season wins 6 times (47, 56, 57, 58, 58, 59).

In those 12 years the Spurs won 55 or more games 8 (EIGHT) times. What was the matter with those teams? They were seeded 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd - WTH? Zero titles. He won as an old man 3rd banana in his last year, and in a strike shortened year - both times with 1st seeds, neither time as the main guy.


This also irks me. You want to talk about his rings as a main selling point to why Hakeem was better. Without Drexler, Hakeem doesn't win that second ring. Drexler had a higher win share than Hakeem in those playoffs, something David never had the luxury of.

But per your beloved PER, Hakeem well outplayed Drexler, didn't he? The raw stats combine to say Hakeem should have had more WS - he shot more and better among other details.

Without Duncan, Robinson has no rings. David Robinson was hanging on by a thread in '03, he sucked in the regular season, had a good playoff as the 3rd banana behind Duncan. Hakeem was the main guy both years he won including with a 47 win 6th seed when he stomped all over DRob in his one MVP season on the way to a ring. It bothers you because it's a big hole in DRob's resume? It should.


Bagwell answer me this. Do you think Magic or Bird could have lead those spurs teams pre duncan to a ring? So Terry Cummings/Willie Anderson are the next two best players for David.

They are out of position. Hakeem, KAJ, Wilt, Moses, maybe a healthy McHale or KG would all have a shot.


Compare that to Stockton/Hornacek, Worthy/Jabbar, Parish/Mchale. Do you think Bird or Magic would have lead the spurs to a better record? Now put David on a Team with Mchale/Parish or Worthy/Jabbar. Put David in his prime with those guys. He wasn't close to his prime with Tim. Imagine if he had been.

I imagine a lot of things, like Len Bias not being a dirt bag and McHale not breaking his foot and the Celts winning two more titles.

Bird and Magic are two of the most dynamic offensive players of all time, but, who is going to play post defense? While I don't think Robinson's post D is as great as the stats say, he's clearly quite high on the list? How do you replace that? The ream is built to suit them, and has some journyman Centers on it, like Brickowski.


We arent going to agree on who is better between Hakeem and David. Again, I have no problem with you picking Hakeem. The thing is, you taking Hakeem doesn't change my thread title.

I do not believe you are a mod, so changing the title is not an issues...


With equal talent I believe this.

Shaq
Jordan
Lebron
Wilt
Jabbar
Hakeem
Drob

Lead there teams to better records than any other players in the History of the game. The guys like Magic,Bird,BigO IMO could not lead teams to better records, and did not impact the game as much as the guys above did. The same guys I take Drob over, Id also take Hakeem over.

You ought to take a good look at Bird's rookie year vs the year before almost the same turn around as DRob.

Also, Magic took the reins from KAJ and got him all his titles from 2 to N. Worthy and the rest of that cast is somewhat overrated. I mean they were great, but not GREAT, not w/o Magic.

IKnowHoops
12-20-2013, 01:46 PM
[QUOTE=bagwell368;27112503]PER is a flawed stat for starters, also such a list is worthless without minutes played. A guy with a 19.0 PER that played 321 minutes clearly has less impact than a guy with a 16.8 PER that played 788 minutes.

This won't stop you from using PER to bolster your argument later.




That might be overdoing it a bit, but yeah w/o a Center of course they are no good, now plug in a league average Center, and then what? How about Jordan, Oscar, Wilt get removed from their teams, think they will be hoisting any banners, even with average players to replace them? I don't, so what's your point?

Without Jordan the Bulls were a shot away from the eastern conference finals. Without Drob, the Spurs got the number one pick in the draft so yeah huge difference sir.




In small part that's true, but they also played a bit or a lot above whom they replaced but since the team won so many more games those win shares were spread around a lot more thickly. That's what I've been saying.

David brought the wins, and when he got hurt, they were the 1st pick in the lottery. No need to wonder, the proof is there. With david 50plus wins, without David, lottery. This happened so its not even up for debate.



Win Shares says you are wrong.

In '89 the 3 Centers earned 3.9 WS, and the 3 PF's earned 3.2 WS

In '90 the 2 Centers earned ~18.0 (about 1/3 of Brickowski's minutes were at PF) and
the 3 PF's earned ~11.0 WS.


Again here is the problem, WS says David outplayed Hakeem every year. If you can't use Win shares for this then you can't use WS to make your own points dude. Its called hypocrisy.

That's 29 Win Shares but the team earned 37 more than '89 and that's 8 win shares (~14.3% of the teams total) that went to guys like Anderson, Eliot, Cheeks, Strickland above themselves in '89 or the guys they replaced.

BTW, You were just talking Robinson and then Cummings. Caldwell Jones came in for '90 and way outplayed Gudmundsen and Whitehead from '89; Brickowski played 400 less minutes in '90, but was worth .2 more Win Shares than '89.

Again here is the problem, WS says David outplayed Hakeem every year. If you can't use Win shares for this then you can't use WS to make your own points dude. Its called hypocrisy.



No, the genius Larry Brown got himself a much stronger set of pieces to work with. No doubt Robinson and then Cummings were the big bananas, but to short shrift the rest of them by relying on PER to submerge the value they brought is a disservice to that SAS team, it's fans, and the folks on this thread.

If Hakeems players have a higher PER than David's guys, and the minutes match up, but the Spurs guys have higher Win Shares, and Win Shares as we know is higher when your team has more wins, then what this tells me is that Hakeems players played better than Davids. Now when we compare Hakeem and David directly, David has higher PER and higher WinShares than Hakeem. This is the one comparison where a player is better in both advanced stats. So the conclusion drawn from all this is that Hakeem had better players but David was that much better that even though his guys were not playing as well, his greatness still was able to get the team more wins, thus getting his teammates a higher WS, yet they maintained a lower PER than the opposing rockets players because they simply did not produce as well.


I've been using win shares all along, but, unlike more than 1/2 the people here that use them I know where at least some of the weak points are, and one of them is players that play for great teams get to draw more win shares year in and year out than players with weaker teams. I still haven't seen you produce a comprehensive list of teammates year by year of the 10 year peaks of each player (DRob and Hakeem) by win shares, which will prove BY win shares that Houston was a weaker team year in and year out. You're the one that hoists DRob up with his win shares, then you need to answer arguments against him and/or win shares. Not doing it, as you have done throughout this thread is true hypocrisy.

Yeah all the weak points are those that don't bolster your argument, I get that by now.





So you really believe that? Excluding the two teams he was on that won the title, that gives us 12 years.

In those 12 years, the NBA Champ won with under 60 regular season wins 6 times (47, 56, 57, 58, 58, 59).

In those 12 years the Spurs won 55 or more games 8 (EIGHT) times. What was the matter with those teams? They were seeded 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd - WTH? Zero titles. He won as an old man 3rd banana in his last year, and in a strike shortened year - both times with 1st seeds, neither time as the main guy.

If you cannot understand Go see Lebron's career with the Cavs. Exact same senario. One Allstar with a bunch of fringe and bad players on it. Not to mention the Worm self destructed and sabotaged the Spurs against the Rockets. Find me one player as good as Drexler on any of those teams...waiting. And yes its important even though he played with Drexler for a short time because he won a championship with Drexler and he would not of won that year had Drexler not been there.




But per your beloved PER, Hakeem well outplayed Drexler, didn't he? The raw stats combine to say Hakeem should have had more WS - he shot more and better among other details.

Like I said, when I have a point PER means nothing, but when you have one, you'll use it. You either got to pick a stat and stick to it or just stop because at this point you are cherry picking. We can use PER or WS bro, whatever you want. Both say Drob was the better more productive player. I don't need to cherry pick anything.



Without Duncan, Robinson has no rings. David Robinson was hanging on by a thread in '03, he sucked in the regular season, had a good playoff as the 3rd banana behind Duncan. Hakeem was the main guy both years he won including with a 47 win 6th seed when he stomped all over DRob in his one MVP season on the way to a ring. It bothers you because it's a big hole in DRob's resume? It should.

We know this, but where was Hakeem in 03? It was David's last year, he was like 36 years old.




They are out of position. Hakeem, KAJ, Wilt, Moses, maybe a healthy McHale or KG would all have a shot.

Funny you mention KG since his career mirrors David's. KG actually had better players with him in MN than Drob had with the Spurs when they were both prime players.




I imagine a lot of things, like Len Bias not being a dirt bag and McHale not breaking his foot and the Celts winning two more titles.

Bird and Magic are two of the most dynamic offensive players of all time, but, who is going to play post defense? While I don't think Robinson's post D is as great as the stats say, he's clearly quite high on the list? How do you replace that? The ream is built to suit them, and has some journyman Centers on it, like Brickowski.



I do not believe you are a mod, so changing the title is not an issues...



You ought to take a good look at Bird's rookie year vs the year before almost the same turn around as DRob.

Almost, but David's was a record. Thats why Bird is almost as impactful.


Also, Magic took the reins from KAJ and got him all his titles from 2 to N. Worthy and the rest of that cast is somewhat overrated. I mean they were great, but not GREAT, not w/o Magic.

Worthy was an overrated Finals MVP? over Magic, and so did Kareem. Magic has 3 finals MVP's but 5 chips. David didn't play with anyone in his prime that could of gotten a finals MVP over him. Not even close.

Still kinda slow in here. I ran out of energy last time we talked about this so hey to fill up some time before the season actually really gets going, thought we could finish this thing.

Lakers + Giants
12-20-2013, 02:13 PM
You really should think before you post, especially with a name like "IKnowHoops". Go change your name bud, seriously.

IKnowHoops
12-20-2013, 04:45 PM
You really should think before you post, especially with a name like "IKnowHoops". Go change your name bud, seriously.

What in particular did you disagree with?

TrueFan420
12-20-2013, 05:50 PM
Can mods revoke his thread making rights?

IKnowHoops
12-20-2013, 05:58 PM
Can mods revoke his thread making rights?

ahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahaahahahaahahahaahahaha ha

bagwell368
12-20-2013, 06:10 PM
=IKnowHoops opined:

This won't stop you from using PER to bolster your argument later.

I've used it seldom, in response to others that do - so I can refute their points. Check Debate 101 to see why that's efficacious.


David brought the wins, and when he got hurt, they were the 1st pick in the lottery. No need to wonder, the proof is there. With david 50plus wins, without David, lottery. This happened so its not even up for debate.

1. Elliot went down the tubes that year AND never played well again, so that had something to do with it.

2. The 37 year old gun Wilkins was brought in and had a horrific season - his last good year was '93-'94. He sucked.

3. Vernon Maxwell was a new addition and brought his well below average game to the Spurs.

4. Duncan was a massive addition the following year that Robinson fans can't escape for one moment in looking at the turnaround.

You need to appreciate the role of cause and effect more before making such assertions.


Again here is the problem, WS says David outplayed Hakeem every year. If you can't use Win shares for this then you can't use WS to make your own points dude. Its called hypocrisy.

Again, Houston's team was worse just about every year - with worse playoffs seedings which I've documented in the past. Yet Houston won titles (two of them) and did better in the playoffs with their record than the Duncanless SAS did. In fact we shouldn't ever forget the mind numbing beat down Hakeem laid on DRob in DRob's sole MVP year in the playoffs.


If Hakeems players have a higher PER than David's guys, and the minutes match up, but the Spurs guys have higher Win Shares, and Win Shares as we know is higher when your team has more wins, then what this tells me is that Hakeems players played better than Davids.

Sorry I can't follow this 'description', try again with clarity in mind if you would.


Now when we compare Hakeem and David directly, David has higher PER and higher WinShares than Hakeem. This is the one comparison where a player is better in both advanced stats.

Unh hunh - so care to explain why Hakeem makes it higher on the average NBA's scribes list of top Centers all time?


So the conclusion drawn from all this is that Hakeem had better players but David was that much better that even though his guys were not playing as well, his greatness still was able to get the team more wins, thus getting his teammates a higher WS, yet they maintained a lower PER than the opposing rockets players because they simply did not produce as well.

Again, please provide data and a clear description of what you are talking about.


Yeah all the weak points are those that don't bolster your argument, I get that by now.

Meaningless, you've been unable to check my arguments in these threads. Interesting that you waited almost 3 months to post here again. Glad I found it so I could deny this rubbish once again.


If you cannot understand Go see Lebron's career with the Cavs. Exact same senario.

Try spell check.


One Allstar with a bunch of fringe and bad players on it. Not to mention the Worm self destructed and sabotaged the Spurs against the Rockets. Find me one player as good as Drexler on any of those teams...waiting.

There have been two very long threads on this topic in the past year, search out my answer to your question which I answered - probably more than once. Then make sure you count how many years he was there, and how long he was actually dominant.


And yes its important even though he played with Drexler for a short time because he won a championship with Drexler and he would not of won that year had Drexler not been there.

Another cute assertion, and Jordan would have zero titles with no Pippen and Jackson....


Like I said, when I have a point PER means nothing, but when you have one, you'll use it. You either got to pick a stat and stick to it or just stop because at this point you are cherry picking.

I only use PER with people that use it first and you bet I beat them with their own weapon - so? PER is an inferior stat as the creator would no doubt tell you if you asked.


We can use PER or WS bro, whatever you want. Both say Drob was the better more productive player. I don't need to cherry pick anything.

Yet you've spent how many hours trying to defend him? BTW, PER is an awful stat, WS somewhat better there are more that are even better.


We know this, but where was Hakeem in 03? It was David's last year, he was like 36 years old.

He was retired, and truthfully he should have retired after '99.


Funny you mention KG since his career mirrors David's. KG actually had better players with him in MN than Drob had with the Spurs when they were both prime players.

Yet another subjective assertion backed up by zero data. Seriously this might work with 14 year old Spurs fans, but it's not passing muster her.


Almost, but David's was a record. Thats why Bird is almost as impactful.

But it's not "HIS". It belongs to the team, and Bird did not have as good a team with him as a rookie as SAS did in Duncan Rookie year by far. I'll come back and document that later, but I've looked it over before and it's clear. Remember the two starting centers in Boston were Cowens in his last year (not including his regrettable comeback with the Bucks) and Rick Robey; a journeyman SG in Chris Ford; an aging post surgery Tiny and the quite good Cedric Maxwell. Chew on that.


David didn't play with anyone in his prime that could of gotten a finals MVP over him. Not even close.

Really? How about Duncan? Also after 1990 or so the salary cap made great dynasty teams such as the Celts and Lakers of the 80's uncommon and unlikely and ushered in the era of a single dominant player such as Jordan with a team built to suit them, or 2-3 man outfits like the Heat of Shaq and Wade, or the one year KG Celts - so I'm afraid your assertion isn't applicable here.

tr3ymill3r
12-20-2013, 06:22 PM
Someone drank the koolaid and is too close to the Spurs to realize that he was a great talent and an athletic freak, but definitely not top 8, hell not even top 25.

IKnowHoops
12-20-2013, 06:23 PM
Can mods revoke his thread making rights?


The Only guys to post higher WS per 48 are
Kareem
Wilt
Jordan
Lebron

The only guys to post higher PER than David are
Wilt
Lebron
Jordan

There is a reason for that. Its because his level of individual domination and production was on the level of those guys, he just wasn't on an ultra talented team until he was way out of his prime and therefore never got to have the success similar to those guys.

WadeKobe
12-20-2013, 07:11 PM
The Only guys to post higher WS per 48 are
Kareem
Wilt
Jordan
Lebron

The only guys to post higher PER than David are
Wilt
Lebron
Jordan

There is a reason for that. Its because his level of individual domination and production was on the level of those guys, he just wasn't on an ultra talented team until he was way out of his prime and therefore never got to have the success similar to those guys.

You're still ignoring the one really important fact that Hakeem became GREAT in the playoffs while Robinson shrunk. The advanced stats bear this out. That matters, especially when it's so glaringly obvious.

ztilzer31
12-20-2013, 07:31 PM
David constantly struggled against upper tier centers. It was not only one series. There were multiple times where David would carry his team, and then put up against an elite player he'd shrink

I think he deserves recognition, but he should not be considered a top 8 player IMO.

TrueFan420
12-20-2013, 07:37 PM
The Only guys to post higher WS per 48 are
Kareem
Wilt
Jordan
Lebron

The only guys to post higher PER than David are
Wilt
Lebron
Jordan

There is a reason for that. Its because his level of individual domination and production was on the level of those guys, he just wasn't on an ultra talented team until he was way out of his prime and therefore never got to have the success similar to those guys.
The admiral was a great player but there's so much more than just ws/48 and per that go into it.

ntd
12-20-2013, 07:46 PM
Often performed bad in the playoffs (Like Barry Bonds)


Only when you're Barry Bonds can a career postseason OPS of .933 be considered performing bad.

slashsnake
12-20-2013, 07:46 PM
I like the win shares, but you HAVE to take them with a grain of salt. First off, they are only based off actual numbers post-1978 (turnovers not counted by player before then so it is "guessed".

Also it heavily favors a great team. For example Mo Williams has a win shares of .165 his first year in Cleveland, or better than the average year for Steve Nash and Chris Paul. For the rest of his career it was around a .7.

Win shares just sometimes don't pass the eye test. Pau better than Kobe? Drexler better than Hakeem?

Any stat, where half of its ranking has Chris Birdman Anderson top 7 in offensive win shares has me questioning it.

Tell me, who did more for the offense in 2001 for the Sixers? Motumbo, or Iverson? According to win shares, Motumbo (And iverson was the only one close to him with defensive win shares).

Win shares says:
Paul George is the best defender, not only on the Pacers, but in the league
Larry Bird was arguably the greatest defensive player ever in a 5 year stretch.

bagwell368
12-20-2013, 10:34 PM
Someone drank the koolaid and is too close to the Spurs to realize that he was a great talent and an athletic freak, but definitely not top 8, hell not even top 25.

No. He was great. I have him as better than Bill Russell, and as I haven't worked out my top 20 in well over a year just say that he's lurking somewhere in the 16-19 area all time. That's an all time great. But I won't put him any higher. He's not ahead of KG, Moses, or Hakeem in my book.

bagwell368
12-20-2013, 10:38 PM
The Only guys to post higher WS per 48 are
Kareem
Wilt
Jordan
Lebron

The only guys to post higher PER than David are
Wilt
Lebron
Jordan

There is a reason for that. Its because his level of individual domination and production was on the level of those guys, he just wasn't on an ultra talented team until he was way out of his prime and therefore never got to have the success similar to those guys.

DRob goes from .250 WS/48 in the regular season to .199 in the post season. That's a big drop. One of the worst I've seen is Karl Malone's .202 to .140. 62 point drop for Malone and 51 for DRob. How about Hakeem? .177 regular season to .189 in the playoffs - so he actually went up!!

That's what a winner looks like I guess.

bagwell368
12-20-2013, 10:45 PM
Only when you're Barry Bonds can a career postseason OPS of .933 be considered performing bad.

In 5 of Bonds 9 post season series, he had a .868 or worse OPS:

.542
.392
.868
.647
.653

That's pretty shabby for a superstar.

In one of his good series he had .222 BA and a .333 SLG - ummmm good

kdspurman
12-20-2013, 11:01 PM
David constantly struggled against upper tier centers. It was not only one series. There were multiple times where David would carry his team, and then put up against an elite player he'd shrink

I think he deserves recognition, but he should not be considered a top 8 player IMO.

Like? I feel many see the highlights from that series where Dream went nuts and run with that.

Ewing- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=ewingpa01&p2=robinda01

Shaq- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=robinda01

Dream- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

Mourning- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=mournal01

Mutumbo- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=mutomdi01&p2=robinda01

Obviously these have to be looked at in total context, like when his career started to wind down and against a guy like Shaq who was still pretty dominant. But look at some of the head 2 head matchups with D-Rob vs some of the better C's of the 90's.

TheMightyHumph
12-21-2013, 04:43 AM
Is there really any reason The Admiral should be considered above Robert Parish?

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 04:55 AM
Is there really any reason The Admiral should be considered above Robert Parish?

Really???

TheMightyHumph
12-21-2013, 05:02 AM
Damn, I knew that was going to be your exact response.

Yes, really. Is Parish's value supposed to be diminished because his team had better players until Duncan came along?

Honestly, you don't know hoops. You know the scent of David Robinson.

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 06:52 AM
Damn, I knew that was going to be your exact response.

Yes, really. Is Parish's value supposed to be diminished because his team had better players until Duncan came along?

Honestly, you don't know hoops. You know the scent of David Robinson.

Well if you knew my response, you must of had some hint of how bad of a question that was. David destroys Parish statistically on every level. I wouldn't even know where to begin its so bad. You asking about the difference between Parish and Robinson guarantees that Iknowhoops more than you.

bagwell368
12-21-2013, 07:20 AM
Is there really any reason The Admiral should be considered above Robert Parish?

DRob is somewhere in the 5th-7th bracket of all time Centers. Parish might be as high as #12-13. The way it lays out #5 is closer to #1 than #12 is to #5 - think about that.

I watched Parish a lot more than DRob. Believe me he was by far the weak link of the Celts big 3. KAJ ate him alive at will for one thing. DRob I usually saw in playoffs and Sunday National Games, and just once live.
Parish's value comes from a long steady career. DRob was a better defender and much better outside shooter. Parish really couldn't dribble and DRob could. Parish had a somewhat better low post game, but it was far from elite.

Not close overall

Swashcuff
12-21-2013, 09:25 AM
What a horrendous thread. Just goes to show when people don't understand stats or how to put them into context they should just ask the opinion of someone who knows or try to at least gain an understanding of how it should be used. D-Rob is NICE really NICE but if that's your argument you might as well change your entire top 25.

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 04:33 PM
[QUOTE=kdspurman;27649681]Like? I feel many see the highlights from that series where Dream went nuts and run with that.


Ewing- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=ewingpa01&p2=robinda01

David is 12-7 vs Pat. He holds Pat to 43% shooting while David shoots 50%. David gets 23pts per while Pat gets 20. David wins this matchup.


Shaq- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=robinda01

Unfortunately for Drob half of his career going against Shaq was when he was old. But let me concentrate on the first half, from 93-98. He averaged 28.4 pts per game against SHAQ! He played against him 9 times. Shaq averaged 26 against him in that same time. He was 5-4 against Shaq




Dream- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

Held Dream to 44% from the field while he shot 48% David Averaged 20pts and Dream Averaged 22pts. David was 30-12 against Dream. There reb/blk/asst stl are identical.



Mourning- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=mournal01


Again David played about 30% of his games far from his prime, which keeps the numbers closer but this was a landslide anyway. David shot at 54% while holding Zo to 49%. He averaged more rebounds asst stls, but alonzo had more blocks. David averaged 26 to Zo's 19. Up until 98 when he was 32 years old at the time, he averaged 29.3 against ZO. And he was 13-7 against ZO




Mutumbo- http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=mutomdi01&p2=robinda01
David was 22-8 against him, outscored him 23-11 had one more blk,asst,and stl a game, while pulling .3 less boards.

So at the end of the day, David Robinson either outplayed or played even with every great center he got to go up against. And with the exception of Shaq he has an overwhelming win record against them as well. SMH at some of you who think you know anything about Drob. Thank you KDspurman for educating these guys.

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 05:19 PM
What a horrendous thread. Just goes to show when people don't understand stats or how to put them into context they should just ask the opinion of someone who knows or try to at least gain an understanding of how it should be used. D-Rob is NICE really NICE but if that's your argument you might as well change your entire top 25.

WS/48
1.Kareem
2.Wilt
3.Lebron
4.MIke
5.DRob
6.Connie Hawkins
7.Chris Paul
8.Kevin Durant
9.Shaq
10.Larry Foust
11.Big O
12.Dirk
13.Vern Mikkelsen
14.Charles Barkley
15.Chet Walker
16.George Mikan
17.Karl Malone
18.Magic Johnson
19.Dolph Shayes
20.Neil Johnston
21.Kevin Garnett
22.Zelmo Beaty
23.Dr. J
24.Amare
25.Tmac

PER
1.Wilt
2.Jordan
3.Lebron
4.Drob
5.Shaq
6.DWade
7.Tracy
8.Chris Paul
9.KAJ
10.Connie Hawkins
11.KG
12.Barkley
13.Malone
14.Mikan
15.Dr J.
16.Durant
17.Baylor
18.Pettit
19.Dirk
20.Spencer haywood
21.Kobe Bryant
22.Larry Bird
23.Amare
24.Dream
25.Tim Duncan

MY Top 25

1.Lebron
2.Jordan
3.Shaq
4.Wilt
5.KAJ
6.DRob
7.Dream
8.Duncan
9.KG
10.Durant
11.Wade
12.TMAC
13.CP3
13.Kobe
14.Big O
15.Magic
16.Moses
17.Bird
18.Dr. J
19.Barkley
20.Malone
21.Dirk
22.Connie Hawkins
23.AI
24.Baylor
25.Ewing

I kinda just through this together, but that is definitely my top 10 of all time right there. And this isn't a list of best careers, this is a list of the best at there best. The only way I like to rank players.

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 06:28 PM
MY Top 25

1.Lebron
2.Jordan
3.Shaq
4.Wilt
5.KAJ
6.DRob
7.Dream
8.Duncan
9.KG
10.Durant
11.Wade
12.TMAC
13.CP3
13.Kobe
14.Big O
15.Magic
16.Moses
17.Bird
18.Dr. J
19.Barkley
20.Malone
21.Dirk
22.Connie Hawkins
23.AI
24.Baylor
25.Ewing

And I can make my All time Team from this list.

PG-Lebron/CP3/Big O
SG-Jordan/Wade/Kobe
SF-Durant/KG/TMAC
PF-DRob/DREAM/Duncan
CC-Shaq/Wilt/Jabbar

Holler Back, that Team is trump tight.

TheMightyHumph
12-21-2013, 06:44 PM
You don't know much if Bill Russell ain't in your top 25

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 06:54 PM
You don't know much if Bill Russell ain't in your top 25 Bill can get in that bottom 5. I through it together. he's not in my top 15.

TheMightyHumph
12-21-2013, 06:56 PM
Bill can get in that bottom 5. I through it together. he's not in my top 15.

But #1 in Titles as a player

IKnowHoops
12-21-2013, 07:04 PM
But #1 in Titles as a player

He was in an awesome situation with very little competitive balance. There are at least 10 bigmen in history that would of had the same or more success in his situation. Put Karl Malone in his place. Would of had better stats and better results. Karl would of gotten 40 and 20 back then all day easily.

TheMightyHumph
12-21-2013, 08:41 PM
He was in an awesome situation with very little competitive balance. There are at least 10 bigmen in history that would of had the same or more success in his situation. Put Karl Malone in his place. Would of had better stats and better results. Karl would of gotten 40 and 20 back then all day easily.

You keep reaching for stats. You think Karl could guarded Wilt and beaten him consistently in the playoffs, And remember, no Stockton.

And remember, Karl would have still been in very good shape, as good shape as anyone in the NBA during that period of time.

Again, I have to state, you really don't know hoops.

tredigs
12-21-2013, 08:59 PM
He was in an awesome situation with very little competitive balance. There are at least 10 bigmen in history that would of had the same or more success in his situation. Put Karl Malone in his place. Would of had better stats and better results. Karl would of gotten 40 and 20 back then all day easily.

You need to stop. Your top 25 with Magic well outside the top 10 was enough.

Pablonovi
12-21-2013, 10:30 PM
I know that IKnowHoops has been emphasizing (at least recently) that he is ranking players by their Peaks and NOT by their entire careers.

Career-wise I have
D Rob = #15,
Russell = #16.

Supreme LA
12-21-2013, 10:51 PM
This thread is a perfect example for why stats don't tell the whole story.